1  - 


. iMK^C-^^'  j 

VxX  1'  x\vX''''''x  ■"V"'  '''^'^'  xX 


v  '  \  X  >  V  N  X  \^x  X^  X-^  ^'Vx  X  '  X  .  .X-x-' 

vx^  ^  x>'^  X  '^'  x^^X^XlX  x:%^^^mX''\xXx^' 'x  x\v\'''xx  x  \x'x; 

x^x;'"^"  XxX^'x  '  X  V\X;^X5!M4•Xx|M^^X^x\xVX^'^x  Xxx  "\  A  xX'x  x< 

^^X  X  X  xx  ''X,  x'  X,  X  X=-^X^^^^%'^^'xX^^^|^xx\x^'^X\"  xXx'  x^-  XX  xV  X^  X^x-' 
X,xx.,xxxxx-,,.A\V,,X.^.,V>X.,XXVV.XX.X^XX^»  I  XxxV  xX^x  x\ 


V  \  '‘  V  ''■• 

Xixx'.-  <  x>. 


^  x\^  ;-Xx^NX  4|<x4xx^xX|X^^^^  X  ., 

'  '  ""  '  "  '4' . ^\'V^X,\'4Vx  ^k\\^%".X%t  C  X 

N  ^  A''\  X  ^  Vs  V'Vs'^  \\>V\  ^  s  >  \s\Vi,\\\>,  \ 

^  \s  ^  ^  N  %  Vx  ^''SV'^  ^  N  \  xA  \  ^  X  v'-V^  ^  r. 

'x  x  x  '  ''''4  4V  X^  \'x''\axa\^H\''^xX  xi  '■\xX^'l  X  x'''  "x  x"\^  V ''  ''' 

Cxx  x  '  ^^X  V'  C4^\Vn\  \^x  ^xxxv^  AX^'xxX"  '  • 

Itvrv>  :  x>\  >xx>v\x ^x  $::  4  ::-\^jx::  x^  ^  x ' 

vV'  »  \'  .  ^  ^  »  V  A  •^  NsVS\  A  ,.  'X  ^  .V  \ss  V  I  S  \ 

'\  ^x^xX^'  I'x'  xVx''^t'''<v'''^V^c^V'^  'Vx'\:^  iv X  • 

xA'\\cv'^xa‘"xx%  "" 

A  ''  x-X  4\  \  Ox  '  0  xX>x  XX  X  X  X  x^  X,  X  ^ 


BX  890  .H84  1864 
Hughes,  John,  1797-1864. 

Complete  works  of  the  most 
Rev.  John  Highes,  D.D., 


fe ^^- '. V -  ;-v' -  7r>'-:^-  -< :-:  V;'-'  .  • .:  ', .-v' 


•Si!*' 


Ji  -  "t-m  cv,.v,^.  _  i  '  .  V 

■’e';^i:,0^5,%;'3iV;'f  r^:;'i«^  , 


■  ..'  ■  V 


-Vu  ;^  • 
■^^;^-'  :.V' .' 

i'A;.  u. ■  L-j,  \  :  '  ■•  .  '  .  .  •.  O  '■ 

i:"  y  •  r  ' 


V,  ■ 


rt  .«  r  '  *  » 

■-  ■>' ■■  -.V  ;l  ■'« 


r' V'  "■  ■  • ' 


^  '- i*  .  •  •  •  t'-'  V 

gs"- ' '-5'- r ’  '  . '  :•  -  . 


/• 

■‘  t; 


f3?V\  ■•*ir‘'‘VV  •  ^  i-  •  -i-.""  ry*.'-  •*  •■'» 


✓ 


/ 

i' 


y 

'*  -  “S’  jfc '.: 


■^f  1,,  •  if'i.'<  »'’'  -  •#» 


.i-. 


•  N  '.r 


f  f 


.  •  '  »  '•  ■ 


>.W-Vf'\i'  .  ' 

.V-  ^,C  rJ-  ■  '  ■» . 


■'  i  >  • 


:/ v  :'v-f, 

.■'  v:'^T 

■•^'  V.  r; 


y4r  "  Vt!  -a”' 
't'A'- 

ri:  i-." 


\- 


.-rB 


lV., 

't^  t- 


-T>- 

.  .V  ;'r^, 


•  *■' 

s 


\ 


.  -v'’,  , 


•) 

r 

*>,.•»  K 


>  '  -  J  • 


V'. 


/ 


>-  , 


,  -''j 
"•u  '-  ■  'V- 


V/ 

'.  •  •<« 
-<  *  '  • 

B4£\> 


f. 

.  ,/ 


•?-,  j 


f' 


/  . 
i'.  t 


V\..4'  V 


>l**' 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


h  ttps  ://a  rc  h  i  ve .  0  rg/d  etai  I  s/co  m  p  I  etewo  r  ksof  m  0 1  h  u  g  h_0 


ARCHBISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 


COMPRISING  ni8 


SERMONS,  LETTERS,  LECTURES, 
SPEECHES,  ETC. 


fcMlj  Compile))  from  tire  (rest  Sotirrej, 

I 

AND  EDITED  BY 

LAWRENCE  KEIIOE. 


VOL.  I. 


NEW  YORK: 

THE  CATHOLIC  PUBLICATION  HOUSE, 


' 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1864, 

BY  LAWRENCE  KEHOE 

In  the  Cloiii's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  tne  Southern  District  of 

New  York. 

■  I 


PKEFACE. 


Having  heard  many  persons,  admirers  of  the  late  Archbishop 
Hughes,  express  a  wish  that  his  public  lectures,  letters  and 
speeches  might  be  collected  and  published  in  book  form,  the  com¬ 
piler  of  this  volume  has,  after  some  deliberation,  undertaken  the 
task,  which,  he  trusts,  will  prove  acceptable  to  the  Catholic  com¬ 
munity  in  general.  The  following  pages  are  the  first  installment, 
and  will  be  immediately  followed  by  another  volume  of  about  the 
same  size,  which  will  complete  the  work.  The  biographical  sketch 
merely  touches  upon  the  principal  events  in  His  Grace’s  career,  but 
is  the  most  complete  one  yet  published.  The  speeches  of  His  Grace 
on  the  School  Question — a  question  which  first  brought  him  prom¬ 
inently  before  the  New  York  public — will,  no  doubt,  be  read  with 
pleasure  as  well  as  profit  by  thousands  who  have  heard  of  these  great 
efforts  of  Dr.  Hughes,  but  who  liave  had  no  chance  heretofore  of 
reading  them.  His  speeches  before  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  as  well 
as  his  great  Three  Days’  Speech  in  Carroll  Hall  on  this  ques¬ 
tion,  will  be  found  in  this  volume  in  full.  Other  important  docu¬ 
ments  are  also  given  entire.  The  concluding  volume  will  also 
contain  important  writings  of  Archbishop  Hughes,  which  should  be 
read  by  every  Catholic  in  the  land. 

The  Editor. 

New  York,  Se^Umber,  1864. 


^  ■ 


S'"  ?  ®* 


»  . < .  tr 


.-'  .  '  i- 


t’l^X 


"  ■  ’  rl 

m 

.'/;•  ^  f* 'v  -'a  ■■'^^riiir  yi^^'-’  ':■  -V  v  - ’‘ ’  '  i 

-  .-a*  r  i, 

*.  .-  *rv  t  *  2  •  » ,  t .  ^  '  I^^^KMHIH  *  */  KKCMj  t  •  j 


itiiri''^4'  ’  "  ."'V.  .h'  ‘*"'''  > 


,  / 


.“V 


•,  ■/(»■*  V".'  , 
I  li  A:  * 


’ ,  .-**-'is'?*". 


CONTENTS  TO  VOLUME  I 


p^oa 


Biooeaphical  Sketch  of  Archbishop  Hughes .  7 

Funekal  Ceremonies .  15 

Names  of  Bishops  and  Priests  Present .  IS 

Oration  of  Kt.  Rev.  John  McClosket,  D.  D .  17 

Resolutions  of  the  Trustees  of  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral — The  Courts — Com¬ 
mon  Council,  State  Legislature,  etc.,  on  the  Death  of  Archbishop 

Hughes .  22 

Letters  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  Secretary  Seward  and 

Governcr  Seymour . 24 

Month’s  Mind  Ceremonies .  25 

Sermon  of  Rt.  Rev.  John  Loughlin,  D.  D .  28 


WRITINGS  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Serjion  on  Catholic  Emancipation,  Preached  in  1829 .  29 

’THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION— 

Speech  in  St.  Patrick’s  School-Room,  July  20th,  1840 .  41 

“  Basement  op  St.  James’  Church,  July  27th,  1840 .  48 

Address  op  the  Catholics  to  their  Fellow-Citizens  of  the  City  and  State 

OP  New  York— Speech  of  Archbishop  Hughes .  50 

Speech  in  Basement  op  St.  James’  Church,  August  24th,  1840 . 66 

Letter  to  “Evening  Post”  in  Answer  to  an  “Irish  Catholic.” .  79 

Speech  in  Basement  op  St.  James’  Church,  Sept.  7th,  1840 .  81 

“  “  “  “  “  21st,  1840  .  96 

Petition  op  the  Catholics  op  New  York  to  the  Board  op  Aldermen  for  a 

Portion  op  the  Common  School  Fund .  102 

Speech  in  Basement  op  St.  James’  Church,  Oct.  5th,  1840 .  107 

“  “  “  “  “  19th,  1840 .  114 

“  before  City  Council— First  Day .  125 

“  “  “  — Second  Day . . .  143 

Great  Speech  in  Carroll  Hall— First  Day .  183 

“  “  -Second  Bay .  197 

“  “  — Third  Day .  211 

Review  op  Mr.  Ketchum’s  Rejoinder  .  227 

Speech  in  Washington  Hall,  Feb.  11th,  1841 .  242 

“  IN  <i!ARROLL  Hall,  March  80th,  1841 .  246 

“  “  April  20th,  1841 .  Q54 

“  IN  W.V5HINGTON  Hall,  June  1st,  1841 .  262 

IN  Carroll  Hall,  Oct.  25th,  1841 .  270 

“  Oct.  29th,  1841 .  275 


VI 


OONTEOTS. 


PASS 

Address  to  BiSfiop  Hughes,.  . . .  284 

Bishop  Hughes’  Reply  to  Address . . .  289 

Letter  on  State  op  Ireland .  297 

Lecture — “  Life  and  Times  op  Pius  VTI.” .  299 

Circular  Letter  to  the  Clergy,  1842 .  313 

i  astoral  Letter  in  1842,  on  Administration  op  the  Sacraments,  Secret  So- 

u  'ETiEs,  Church  Property,  etc . . .  814 

Apology  for  Pastoral  Letter,  in  Reply  to  tiSE  Stricstures  op  Four  Editors 

op  Political  Newspapers .  8*^ 

Apology  Continued — First  Letter  to  David  Hale . . . 3J 

“  “  — Second  “  “  .  34» 

“  “  —Third  “  “  .  34S 

Lecture — “Influence  op  Chrlstianity  on  Civilization.” .  351 

Lecture — “  Influence  of  Christianity  on  Social  Servitude.” .  371 

Meeting  of  the  New  York  Church  Debt  Association — Speech  op  Bishop 

Hughes,  May  8d,  1841 .  386 

Speech  of  Bishop  Hughes,  May  10th,  1841 .  896 

“  “  May  20th,  1841 .  899 

Letter  to  Bishop  Hughes,  with  his  Reply .  402 

Introduction  to  Mr.  Livingston’s  Book  on  “  Imputation.” .  406 

Lecture — “  The  Mixture  of  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  Power  in  the  Middle 

A&  .  417 

State  op  the  Diocese  of  New  York  in  1841 .  437 

Extracts  i'Om  Journal  of  a  Voyage  across  the  Atlantic .  443 

Letters  on  the  Moral  Causes  whicri  produced  the  Evil  Spirit  of  the  Times — 

First  Letter — To  Mayor  Harper .  450 

Second  “  — To  Col.  Stone .  463 

Third  “  —  “  . .  486 

Fourth  “  —  “  .  493 

Alleged  Burning  op  Bibles  in  Clinton  County,  N.  Y .  501 

The  Jubilee  op  1842 .  605 

Sermon  on  the  Jubilee . . .  506 

The  Latest  Invention .  510 

Lecture— “  The  Importance  of  a  Christian  Basis  for  the  Science  op  Political 

Economy” .  513 

Eulogy  on  Bishop  Fenwick .  534 

Lecture — Antecedent  Causes  op  the  Irish  Famine  in  1847 .  544 

Sermon  before  both  Houses  op  Congress .  558 

“  Kirwan.” .  573 

Letters  on  the  Importance  op  being  in  Communion  myth  Christ’s  One,  Holy, 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  Addressed  to  a  Private  Reasoner — 

First  Letter .  577 

Second  “  583 

Third  “  590 

Fourth  “  595 

Fifth  “  602 

Sixth  “  609 

Seventh  “  616 

Eighth  “  622 

Ninth  “  628 

“Eirwan”  Unmasked . .  636 

The  CoirvEEsioir  akd  Edifying  Death  of  Andrew  Dunn;  ob,  a  Guide  to 

Truth  and  Peace . 665 

Appendix .  » . . . .  693 


LIB"E 


OP  THE 

MOST  REVEREND  JOHN  HUGHES,  D.  D. 


“  Lives  of  great  men  oft  remind  us 
We  can  make  our  lives  sublime, 

And,  departing,  leave  behind  us 
Footsteps  on  the  sands  of  time.” 
****** 

“  He  was  a  man ;  take  him  for  all  in  all,  * 

We  shall  not  look  upon  his  like  again.” 

Ireland,  prolific  land  of  genius.  Has  given  to  Europe  some  of  the  most 
profound  divines,  greatest  generals,  and  ablest  statesmen.  England, 
France,  Spain,  Austria,  all  have  had  the  benefit  of  Irish  talent  and  Irish 
worth.  But  it  is  America  that  has  received  the  great  influx  of  Irishmen, — 
men  of  exalted,  as  well  as  of  humble  birth,  and  she  received  them  with 
open  arms  and  generous  heart,  for  which  generosity  they  have  paid  her 
back,  in  the  pulpit,  the  council-chamber,  and  the  battle-field,  an  hundred¬ 
fold.  It  is  only  in  America  that  Irish  genius  and  talent  have  had  a  “  fair 
field  and  no  favor,”  and,  consequently,  have  taken  the  lead  in  almost  every 
department  of  life.  Among  those  who  came  to  this  country  in  the  early 
part  of  the  present  century,  from  that  misgoverned  “Isle  of  the  Ocean,” 
was  the  father  of  Archbishop  Hughes.  He  settled  in  Chambersburg,  Pa., 
where  his  only  surviving  son,  Mr.  Michael  Hughes,  now  resides,  and  where 
the  ashes  of  the  beloved  parents  of  our  late  Archbishop  repose. 

The  Most  Reverend  John  Hughes,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  the  town  of  Clogher, 
County  Tyrone,  Ireland,  towards  the  close  of  the  year  1798.  He  was  the 
son  of  a  respectable  farmer  of  small  means,  and  emigrated  to  America  in 
1817  on  account  of  the  disabilities  to  which  his  religion  was  subjected  in 
his  native  country.  His  father  had  preceded  him  to  this  country  a  short 
time,  and  had  purchased  a  small  farm,  and  taken  up  his  alx)de  near 
Chambersburg,  Pa.  On  young  Hughes’  arrival  in  this  country,  his  father 
placed  him  with  a  florist  to  learn  the  art  of  gardening ;  but  having  little 
taste  for  such  pursuits,  and  feeling  within  himself  a  call  to  till  and  cultivate 
the  “  Garden  of  the  Lord,”  he  devoted  his  spare  time  to  study,  and  as  soon 
as  his  engagement  expired,  entered  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Mount  St. 
Mary’s,  Emmettsburg,  Md.,  where  he  remained  for  seven  years,  being 
employed  almost  from  the  first  as  a  teacher.  He  was  ordained  Priest  in 
the  year  1826,  in  Philadelphia,  and  was  appointed  to  the  pastoral  charge 

in 


8 


LIFE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  St.  Josej)li’s  Churcli  of  that  city.  Here  his  sermons  attractei  general 
attention,  and  were  attended  by  the  Uite  of  Philadelphia.  In  1839  he 
preached  a  powerful  sermon  in  St,  Joseph’s  Church,  in  commemoration  of 
the  great  event  just  accomplished  in  Ireland  through  the  untiring  elforts 
of  Daniel  O’Connell — Catholic  Emancipation,  This  sermon  was  his  first 
great  effort  at  pulpit  eloquence,  and  it  was  a  grand  success.  It  was 
published  in  pamphlet  form,  and  was  inscribed  to  Daniel  O’Connell. 

About  this  time,  the  Anti-Catholic  feeling  in  the  United  States  was  just 
commencing.  This  opposition  was  due,  in  great  part,  to  the  rapid  progress 
Catholicity  was  then  making,  which  opened  the  eyes  of  the  bigots  of  the 
various  sects  to  the  fact,  that  there  wms  a  living  Church  in  their  midst ;  as 
well  as  to  several  filthy  Anti-Catholic  publications  of  the  “  Maria  Monk  ” 
class,  which  had  a  large  circulation  throughout  the  country.  Among  the 
champions  who  w^as  determined  to  put  doivn  the  “  Power  of  Rome  ”  in 
this  country  was  the  Rev,  John  Breckenridge,  a  Presbyterian  minister.  In 
1830,  Mr.  Breckenridge  challenged  the  Rev,  J.  Hughes  to  discuss  the 
question  :  “  Is  the  Protestant  religion  the  religion  of  Christ  ?”  The  con¬ 
troversy  was  carried  on  in  the  Catholic  and  Presbyterian  newspapers  for 
several  months,  and  attracted  so  much  attention,  that  the  articles  were 
subsequently  collected  in  a  volume,  which  had  for  a  time  a  wide  circula¬ 
tion.  In  1834,  Mr.  Breckenridge  renewed  the  challenge,  by  proposing  an 
oral  discussion  on  the  question  :  “  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  in  any 
or  in  all  its  principles  and  doctrines  inimical  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  ?” 
Bishop  Hughes,  then  only  a  priest,  immediately  came  forward  as  the 
Catholic  champion.  The  debate  was  published  in  book  form  in  1836,  and 
has  gone  through  several  editions  since,  all  of  which  have  been  published 
by  Catholics,  and  was  regarded  with  great  interest  by  the  public  of  both 
parties.  In  1832,  he  founded  and  had  erected  St.  John’s  Church,  in  Phila¬ 
delphia,  and  was  its  pastor  as  long  as  he  remained  in  that  city. 

In  1837,  Bishop  Dubois,  of  New  York,  having  demanded,  on  account  of 
age  and  infirmity,  some  relief  from  the  cares  of  the  Episcopate,  the  Holy 
See  appointed  Bisho])  Hughes  Coadjutor.  He  was  consecrated  Bishop  of 
Basilopolis,  in  New  York,  January  9th,  1838,  by  Bishop  Dubois,  assisted 
by  Bishops  Kenrick,  of  Philadelphia,  and  Fenwick,  of  Boston.  In  about 
two  weeks  after.  Bishop  Dubois  was  attacked  by  paralysis,  from  which  he 
never  wholly  recovered.  In  the  following  year  the  Pope  appointed  Bishop 
Hughes  Administrator  of  the  Diocese  ;  and  although  he  did  not  succeed  to 
the  full  dignity  of  Bishop  until  the  death  of  Bishop  Dubois,  in  1843,  the 
government  of  that  portion  of  the  Church  was  thenceforth  entirely  in  his 
hands.  His  first  measures  were  directed  to  a  reform  in  the  tenure  of 
Church  property,  which  was  then  vested  in  lay  trustees,  a  system  that  had 
more  than  once  given  rise  to  scandalous  conflicts  between  the  congrega¬ 
tions  and  the  E2iiscoj)al  authority.  All  the  churches  in  the  city,  at  that 
time  only  eight  in  number,  were  heavily  in  debt,  and  five  were  bankrupt,  and 
on  the  point  of  being  sold.  Bishoji  Hughes  resolved  to  consolidate  the 
Church  debts,  to  remove  them  from  the  management  of  laymen,  and  to 
secure  the  titles  in  his  own  name.  In  this  imdertaking  he  was  violently 


LITE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


9 


opposed  by  theTrustees,  and  was  at  the  time  only  partially  successful,  but 
the  most  pressing  debts  were  paid  off,  and  harmony  was  eventually 
restored.  His  plan,  however,  succeeded  in  the  end,  and  before  his  death 
he  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  the  eight  churches  more  than  quadrupled, 
and  all  of  them  nearly  out  of  debt.  Such  was  Bishop  Hughes’  foresight, 
that  all  his  undertakings  proved  successful  in  the  end. 

In  1839,  Bishop  Hughes  visited  France,  Austria,  and  Italy,  to  obtain 
pecuniary  aid  for  his  diocese.  On  his  return  he  applied  himself  with  great 
energy  to  the  cause  of  Catholic  education.  Already,  during  the  previous 
year,  he  had  purchased  property  at  Fordham,  in  Westchester  County,  for 
the  puipose  of  establishing  a  college.  He  now  completed  its  organization, 
and  it  was  opened  in  1841,  under  the  name  of  St.  John’s  College. 

During  his  absence  in  Europe,  the  School  Question  was  discussed  in 
weekly  meetings,  held  by  the  Catholics,  in  the  school-house  attached  to  St. 
Patrick’s  Cathedral.  The  Bishop  arrived  from  Europe  early  in  July,  and 
attended  the  weekly  meeting  in  the  school-room,  on  July  20th,  at  which 
he  made  his  first  great  speech  against  the  Common  School  System  then 
existing  in  this  City  and  State,  and  in  relation  to  the  Common  School  Fund. 
This  speech  will  be  found  in  full  in  another  part  of  this  book,  and  will  be 
read  with  interest,  as  it  will  give  the  Catholics  of  to-day  a  knowledge  of 
what  the  Bishop  and  the  Catholics  of  that  day  had  to  contend  against. 

The  dispute  on  the  School  Question  continued,  and  brought  the  Bishop 
still  more  prominently  before  the  public.  He  made  sjoeeches  at  nearly  all 
the  meetings.  These  speeches  attracted  the  attention  not  only  of  the 
Catholics  of  this  country,  but  even  of  Europe ;  and  the  expose,  of  the 
school-books  then  in  use  was  extensively  copied  and  commented  upon  by 
the  European  press.  It  was  charged  by  Catholics  that  the  Common 
Schools  were  sectarian  in  character,  and  they  complained  of  the  injustice 
of  taxing  them  for  the  support  of  schools  to  which  they  could  not  con¬ 
scientiously  send  their  children.  An  association  was  formed  for  obtaining 
relief.  It  was  demanded  either  that  the  taxes  should  be  removed  or  that 
a  change  should  be  made  in  the  system  of  education.  The  Catholics 
petitioned  the  Common  Council  in  September,  1840,  to  designate  seven 
Catholic  Schools  as  “  entitled  to  participate  in  the  Common  School  Fund, 
ujjon  comifiying  with  the  requirements  of  the  law.”  This  petition  will 
also  be  found  in  its  proper  place  in  this  volume.  Eemonstrances  to  this 
petition  were  sent  in  on  behalf  of  the  “  Public  School  Society,”  by  its 
president,  E.  C.  Cornell,  the  pastors  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
other  Protestant  clergy,  and  on  October  29th  and  30th,  both  parties 
appeared  before  the  Common  Council,  and  occupied  the  two  days  in 
debate.  “  The  Public  School  Society  ”  was  represented  by  Messrs.  Theo¬ 
dore  Sedgwick  and  Hiram  Ketclium  as  counsel ;  the  Eev.  Drs.  Bond,  Bangs, 
and  Eeese,  and  a  Mr.  Peck  on  behalf  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ; 
Eev.  Dr.  Knox  on  the  part  of  the  Eeformed  Dutch  Church,  and  Eev.  Dr. 
Spring  for  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Bishop  Hughes  answered  them  all  in 
an  elaborate  speech  of  several  hours,  whieh  can  be  found  in  full  in  this 
rolume.  It  is  a  most  interesting  document,  and  will  be  read  with  general 


10 


I,rPE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


interest.  But  notwithstanding  the  able  and  lucid  speech  of  the  Bishop, 
the  jjetition  'was  not  granted. 

The  Catholics,  under  the  lead  of  their  talented  Bishop,  were  determined 
not  to  give  the  matter  up  so  easily.  They  presented  a  petition  to  the 
State  Legislature,  praying  for  redress.  A  bill  in  their  favor  passed  the 
Assembly,  but  ■was  lost  in  the  Senate,  and  "was  finally  referred  to  Hon. 
John  C.  Silencer,  Secretary  of  State  and  Snijerintendent  of  Common 
Schools,  who  reported  unfavorably  of  the  Public  School  System.  This 
alarmed  the  Society,  and  they  sent  a  remonstrance  to  the  Legislature 
against  granting  the  petition  of  the  Catholics.  Both  parties  had  a  hearing 
before  a  Committee  of  the  Senate;  Hiram  Ketchum  appearing  for  the 
Society,  and  James  W.  McKeon  and  Wright  Hawkes  for  the  Catholics. 
A  bill  was  framed  in  conformity  'wfith  the  recommendations  of  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  State,  and  put  before  the  Senate,  but  after  a  long  debate  was  finally 
postponed.  As  Mr.  Ketchum’s  speech  was  published  in  full,  and  exten¬ 
sively  circulated,  while  those  on  the  Catholic  side  were  not  even  noticed, 
Bishoj)  Hughes  announced  that  he  would  publicly  review  and  refute  M  r. 
Ketchum’s  speech  in  Carroll  Hall  in  this  city.  The  meetings  took  place 
on  the  evenings  of  the  16th,  17th,  and  21st  of  June,  1841,  and  were 
attended  by  immense  audiences.  These  speeches  are  very  long,  and  on 
accoi;nt  of  their  importance  in  regard  to  the  School  Question,  are  given 
in  full  in  these  pages. 

In  the  ensuing  election  the  School  Question  assumed  a  striking  promi¬ 
nence  in  the  political  canvass.  The  Catholics,  by  the  advice  of  Bishop 
Hughes,  held  meetings  in  what  was  then  known  as  “  Carroll  Hall,”  (now 
St.  Andrew’s  Church),  and  nominated  an  independent  ticket.  The  result 
of  the  election  showed  them  to  be  so  strong  that  some  modifications  of  the 
existing  School  System  were  soon  effected.  Throughout  this  exciting 
controversy  Bishop  Hughes  was  the  animating  spirit  of  his  co-religionists, 
and  was  called  on  at  times  to  defend  himself  through  the  press  against  the 
personal  attacks  of  his  opponents.  About  eight  o’clock  on  election  night, 
April  12th,  1842,  a  gang  of  ruffians  proceeded  stealthily  to  the  residence 
of  the  Bishop,  who  was  absent  at  the  time,  as  ■were  also  the  clergymen 
belonging  to  the  Presbytery,  and  proceeded  to  demolish  the  windows  with 
stones,  brickbats  and  clubs.  After  wweaking  their  malice  to  a  considerable 
extent,  they  ran  away  to  prevent  recognition.  At  this  time  Bishoji  Hughes 
was  accused  of  abetting  discord  by  some  of  the  papers,  in  reply  to  which 
he  thus  nobly  defended  himself:  “  I  am  not  a  man  of  strife  nor  contention. 
My  disposition  is,  I  trust,  both  pacific  and  benevolent.  As  a  proof  of  this, 
I  may  mention  that  I  have  never  had  a  personal  altercation  with  a  human 
being  in  my  life — that  I  have  never  had  occasion  to  call  others,  or  be  called 
myself,  before  any  civil  tribunal  on  earth.  It  is  true  that  public  duty  has 
not  unfrequently  forced  upon  me  the  necessity  of  taking  my  stand  in  moral 
opposition  to  principles  ■which  I  deemed  injurious  and  unjust.  But  even 
then,  I  trust,  I  have  made  the  distinction  which  Christian  feeling  suggests 
between  the  cause  and  the  person  of  the  advocate  arrayed  against  me.” 
What  w'as  true  if  him  then^  was  true  of  him  to  the  hour  of  his  death. 


LIFE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


11 


In  1841  he  established  at  Fordham  the  Theological  Seminary  of  St. 
Joseph.  In  August,  1842,  he  held  the  first  Diocesan  Synod  of  New  York, 
and  in  a  jiastoral  letter  dated  September  8,  enforced  its  decrees  respecting 
Secret  Societies  and  Church  property.  His  “  Rules  for  the  Administration 
of  Churches  without  Trustees,”  published  in  1845,  embody  the  system 
adopted  by  this  Synod.  About  1843,  the  extent  of  his  diocese  led  him  to 
ask  for  a  Coadjutor,  and  the  Rev.  J.  McCloskey,  now  Bishop  of  Albany, 
was  accordingly  appointed,  and  was  consecrated  March  10,  1844.  During 
the  Philadelphia  riots  in  1844,  Bishop  Hughes  addressed  a  letter  to  Mayor 
Ilai’per,  refuting  slanders  imblished  against  him  by  the  Herald^  Commercial 
Advertiser^  and  other  papers,  in  which  the  following  passage  occurs  in 
relation  to  himself :  “  He  landed  on  these  shores  friendless,  and  with  but 

a  few  guineas  in  his  purse.  He  never  received  the  charity  of  any  man  ;  he 
never  borrowed  of  any  man  without  repaying ;  he  never  had  more  than  a 
few  dollars  at  a  time ;  he  never  had  a  patron — in  the  Church  or  out  of  it ; 
and  it  is  he  who  has  the  honor  to  address  you  now  as  Catholic  Bishop  of 
New  York.”  This  letter  is  also  published  in  our  pages,  and  is  well  worthy 
of  attentive  perusal,  as  it  shows  who  were  the  enemies  of  the  Bishop  in 
these  trying  times. 

In  December,  1845,  Bishop  Hughes  sailed  again  for  Europe,  in  order  to 
procure  the  services  of  some  of  the  Jesuits,  Brothers  of  the  Christian 
Schools,  and  Sisters  of  Mercy.  He  was  successful  in  his  efforts,  and 
returned  in  the  spring  of  1846.  A  few  months  afterward  he  was  solicited 
by  President  Polk  to  accept  a  special  mission  to  Mexico,  but  declined,  on 
account  of  having  other  more  pressing  duties  to  attend  to.  In  1847,  at  the 
request  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  he  delivered  a  lecture  in  the  Hall  of 
Representatives  at  Washington,  on  “Christianity  the  only  Source  of  Moi’al, 
Social,  and  Political  Regeneration.”  In  this  year  his  diocese  was  divided 
by  the  erection  of  the  Sees  of  Albany  and  Buflfalo,  Bishop  Hughes  retaining 
all  the  counties  of  New  York  south  of  the  parallel  of  42  degrees,  with  a 
part  of  New  Jersey.  In  1850  New  York  was  raised  to  the  dignity  of 
an  Archiepiscopal  See,  and  Archbishop  Hughes  went  to  Rome  to 
receive  the  pallium  at  the  hands  of  the  Pope.  The  first  Provincial 
Council  of  New  York  was  held  in  1854,  and  attended  by  seven  suffragans, 
the  new  Bishoiirics  of  Brooklyn  and  Newark  having  been  created  the 
preceding  year.  Soon  after  its  close  the  Archbishop  made  another  visit  to 
Rome,  in  order  to  be  present  at  the  definition  of  the  dogma  of  the  Immacu¬ 
late  Conception.  On  his  return  he  was  involved  in  a  controversy  with  the 
Honorable  Erastus  Brooks,  editor  of  the  New  York  Express  and  member  of 
the  State  Senate,  growing  out  of  the  Church  Property  question.  At  the 
petition  of  the  Trustees  of  St.  Louis’  Church,  Buffalo,  a  bill,  which  subse¬ 
quently  became  a  law,  had  been  introduced  into  the  Legislature  designed 
to  vest  the  title  to  all  Church  property  in  Trustees.  In  sujqiorting  this 
measure,  Mr.  Brooks  stated  that  Archbishop  Hughes  owned  property  in  the 
city  of  New  York  to  the  amount  of  about  $5,000,000.  The  Archbishop, 


12 


LIFE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


who  was  absent  in  Europe  when  Mr.  Brooks  made  this  assert  ion,  cam® 
forward  as  soon  as  he  returned,  and  denied  these  assertions  of  Mr.  Brooks 
as  incorrect,  stating  that  the  property  was  not  his,  but  belonged  to  the 
Church.  A  long  discussion  through  the  newspapers  was  the  result.  The 
Archbishop  subsequently  collected  the  letters  on  both  sides  and  published 
them  in  a  volume,  with  an  introduction  reviewing  the  Trustee  system  (New 
York,  1855).  The  bill  passed  at  this  time,  and  which  gave  rise  to  this 
discussion,  was  repealed  by  the  Legislature  of  1863. 

On  August  15th,  1858,  he  laid  the  corner-stone  of  a  new  Cathedral, 
designed  to  be  one  of  the  grandest  church  edifices  in  America.  The  walls 
are  several  feet  high,  but  alas,  he  did  not  live  to  see  the  grand  idea  of  his 
life  fulfilled.  Shortly  before  the  war  broke  out,  the  work  on  it  was  stopped, 
to  allow  the  foundations  to  settle,  and  has  not  yet  been  resumed.  At  the 
ceremony  on  this  occasion,  it  was  computed  that  160,000  jjeople  were 
present.  The  Archbishop  preached  the  sermon,  and  gave  an  outline  of 
his  plan  for  its  erection.  He  had  sent  circulars  to  several  prominent 
Catholics,  stating  that  he  wanted  one  hundred  persons  to  subscribe  one 
thousand  dollars  each.  To  this  circular  one  hundred  and  three  persons 
replied  favorably ;  two  of  whom  were  Protestants.  In  reference  to  the 
new  Cathedral,  the  following  extract  from  his  sermon  will  not  prove  unin¬ 
teresting  ; 

“  Its  special  patron,  as  announced,  is  the  glorious  apostle  of  Ireland,  St.  Patrick, 
— originally  selected  as  patron  of  the  first  Cathedral  commenced  by  our  Catholic 
ancestors  in  Mott  Street  fifty-two  years  ago.  .  Their  undertaking  was  indeed  an 
example  of  zeal  and  enterprise  worthy  of  our  imitation.  They  were  very  few, 
they  were  very  poor,  but  their  minds  were  large  as  the  Cathedral  which  they  pro¬ 
jected,  and  theirs  were  the  hearts  of  great  men.  It  might  be  said  of  them  what 
is  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures,  but  in  a  different  sense,  that  “  there  were  giants  in 
those  days.”  They  laid  the  foundation  of  the  first  Cathedral,  at  a  pieriod  when  it 
is  said  that  the  Catholics  of  New  York  were  not  numerous  enough  to  fill  the  small 
Church  of  St.  Peter  in  Barclay  Street — and  that  ten  years  after,  when  the  Cathe¬ 
dral  was  opened,  it  was  necessary,  during  a  short  period,  to  shut  up  St.  Peter’s  on 
alternate  Sundays,  in  order  to  accustom  the  people  to  find  their  waj'-  to  the  new 
church,  which  was  then  considered  to  be  far  out  of  the  city.  Honor  to  the 
memory  of  our  ancestors  of  that  period  I  On  the  parchment  containing  the  names 
of  the  first  patrons  of  the  Cathedral  now  projected,  the  United  States  of  America, 
Ireland,  Scotland,  England,  Belgium,  Spain,  France,  and  Germany,  are  all  repre¬ 
sented.  The  names  of  members  belonging  to  the  Catholic  Church  fi'om  all  these 
countries  will  slumber  side  by  side  on  the  parchment  that  engrosses  them,  and  is 
to  be  deposited  in  the  cavity  of  that  corner-stone.  Neither  can  I  omit  to  mention 
that  two  gentlemen,  who  are  not  Catholics,  have  spontaneously  contributed  each 
the  amount  specified  in  my  circular.  Their  motive  is  not  their  belief  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  moment  in  the  Catholic  religion.  But  it  is  that  they  are  New  Yorkers  by 
birth — that  they  have  traveled  in  Europe,  and  that  they  are  ambitious  to  see  at 
least  one  ecclesiastical  edifice  on  Manhattan  Island  of  which  their  native  city  will 
have  occasion  to  be  proud.  With  regard  to  this  anticipation,  I  can  only  say,  that 
so  far  as  depends  on  me,  they  shall  not  be  disappointed.” 

But  alas  for  the  uncertainty  of  this  life,  the  great  Archbishop  did  not  live 
to  see  the  greatest  work  of  his  life  accomplished  ;  but  the  broad  founda¬ 
tions  and  plans  are  laid,  and  will  no  doubt  be  completed  by  his  successors. 

Since  that  time  the  Archbishop  has  been  a  constant  worker  for  the 


LIFE  OF  AECHBISHOr  HUGHES. 


13 


progress  of  the  Church,  laying  the  corner-stones  of  new  churches,  dedicat¬ 
ing  them,  administering  confirmation,  etc.,  and  continually  preaching  on 
all  these  occasions.  All  these  efforts  were  gradually  undermining  his  con¬ 
stitution,  and  the  close  observer  could  see  that  he  was  fast  failing  in 
general  health.  On  the  1st  of  July,  1860,  he  made  a  most  eloquent  appeal 
in  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral  to  the  Catholics  of  the  diocese  for  their  substan¬ 
tial  aid  for  the  Holy  Father,  who  at  the  time  was  reduced  to  dependence 
on  the  Faithful  throughout  the  world  by  the  loss  of  a  portion  of  his  domin¬ 
ions.  The  appeal  was  nobly  responded  to,  the  amount  raised  being  over 
fifty  thousand  dollars.  The  Pope  acknowledged  the  gift,  and  sent  with  his 
reply  a  massive  silver  medal  in  testimony  of  his  appreciation  of  the  service 
rendered  him  by  the  Catholics  of  New  York. 

In  the  fall  of  1861,  after  the  breaking  out  of  the  rebellion.  Archbishop 
Hughes,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Government,  jjroceeded  to  Europe  to 
exert  his  infiuence  in  behalf  of  the  Union  cause.  He  then  proceeded  to 
Rome,  where  he  assisted  at  the  ceremonies  of  the  canonization  of  the  Japa¬ 
nese  Martyrs,  after  which  Jie  visited  Ireland  on  his  way  back  to  the  United 
States ;  assisted  at  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  of  the  new  Catholic 
University  in  Dublin,  and  t  preached  the  sermon  on  the  occasion,  at  which 
nearly  one  hundred  thousand  persons  were  present.  On  his  return  (Septem¬ 
ber  26th,  1862,)  he  was  the  recipient  of  a  vote  of  thanks  adopted  by  both 
branches  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  ex-Senator 
McMurray  making  the  presentation  address,  which  was  replied  to  by  his 
Grace,  and  which  was  published  at  the  time  of  its  occurrence.  Shortly 
after  his  return  from  Europe  he  delivered  a  discourse  in  St.  Patrick’s 
Cathedral,  in  which  he  referred  to  his  mission  as  follows :  “  I  had  no 
message  to  deliver.  Another  could  have  carried  the  message ;  but  none 
was  committed  to  me  except  the  message  of  peace — except  the  message 
of  explanation — except  the  message  of  correcting  erroneous  ideas — as 
opportunity  might  afford  me  the  chance  of  doing,  in  the  same  spirit  and 
to  the  same  end.  I  have  lost  no  opportunity,  according  to  my  discretion, 
and  that  was  the  only  qualification  connected  with  my  going.  I  have  lost 
no  opportunity  to  accomplish  these  ends,  to  explain  what  was  misunder¬ 
stood,  to  inspire,  so  far  as  language  of  mine  could  have  that  effect,  the 
spirit  of  peace  and  good-will  unto  the  people  of  foreign  States  towards 
that  one  nation  to  which  I  exclusively  owe  allegiance  and  fidelity.  The 
task  was  not  so  easy  as  some  might  have  anticipated ;  its  accomplishment 
has  not  been  so  successful  as  I  could  have  desired.  Nevertheless,  I  trust 
that,  directly  or  indirectly,  my  going  abroad,  in  great  part  for  the  purpose 
of  aiding  the  country,  has  not  been  altogether  without  eflect.” 

On  the  1st  of  November,  1862,  Archbishop  Hughes  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Seward,  Secretary  of  State,  concerning  his  European  mission,  in  which  he 
said  :  “  What  occurred  on  the  other  side  I  think  it  would  be,  at  present, 
improper  for  me  to  make  public.  I  am  not  certain  that  any  word,  or  act, 
or  influence  of  mine  has  had  the  slightest  efi’ect  in  preventing  either  Eng¬ 
land  or  France  from  plunging  into  the  unhapjiy  divisions  that  have 
threatened  the  Union  of  these  once  prosperous  States.  On  the  other  hand, 


14 


LIFE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


I  may  say  that  no  clay — no  hour  even — was  spent  in  Europe  in  which  1 
(lid  not,  according  to  opportunity,  labor  for  peace  between  Europe  and 
America.  So  far  that  peace  has  not  been  disturbed.  But  let  America  be 
prepared.  There  is  no  love  for  the  United  States  on  the  other  side  of  the 
water.  Generally  speaking,  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  the  United 
States  are  ignored,  if  not  despised ;  treated  in  conversation  in  the  same 
contemptuous  language  as  we  might  employ  towards  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Sandwich  Islands,  or  Washington  Territory,  or  Vancouver’s  Island,  or 
the  settlements  of  the  Red  River,  or  the  Hudson  Bay  Territory.  ,  .  .  From 
the  slight  correspondence  between  us,  you  can  bear  me  witness  that  I 
pleaded  in  every  direction  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  so  long  as  the 
slightest  ho]3e  of  the  preservation  remained.  When  all  hojie  of  this  kind 
had  passed  away,  I  was  for  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  our  war,  so  that  one 
side  or  the  other  should  find  itself  in  the  ascendency.” 

Although  he  did  not  place  much  stress  on  what  he  accomplished  in 
Europe,  yet  it  is  inferred  from  events  which  have  since  occurred,  that  his 
mission  was  in  great  part  successful.  His  correspondence  with  the  State 
Department,  if  there  were  any,  has  not  been  published.  With  the  remain¬ 
ing  portions  of  his  Grace’s  life  our  readers  are  familiar,  as,  in  fact,  most 
of  them  are  with  his  whole  life ;  for  he  was  a  man  dear  to  the  hearts  of 
all  the  Catholics  in  the  land,  and  all  his  sermons,  speeches,  letters,  etc., 
were  read  with  the  greatest  avidity,  even  by  those  wdio  differed  from  him 
in  religion.  In  July  last,  when  the  great  riot  was  in  progress.  Archbishop 
Hughes  was  requested  by  the  Governor  to  address  the  people  of  his  faith, 
and  thus  assist  in  restoring  peace.  He  consented,  and,  though  very  weak, 
•spoke  to  an  immense  assemblage  from  the  balcony  of  his  residence,  corner 
of  Madison  Avenue  and  Thirty-fourth  Street.  Since  then  his  health  has 
gradually  failed.  And  Sunday,  Jauuaiy  3d,  1864,  at  seven  o’clock  in  the 
evening,  he  resigned  his  pure  spirit  into  the  hands  of  his  Creator.  The 
last  Sacraments  of  the  Church  were  administered  to  him  by  Father  Quinn, 
of  St.  Peter’s,  Barclay  Street,  some  days  previous,  after  which  he  gradually 
sunk,  until  death  relieved  him  of  suffering.  The  immediate  cause  of  his 
death  was  “  Bright’s  disease  of  the  kidneys.”  He  was  at  the  time  of  his 
death  in  the  sixty-fifth  year  of  his  age. 

His  last  moments  were  marked  by  the  the  calmness  and  resignation  of 
the  true  Christian.  From  eleven  o’clock  on  Saturday  night  until  one 
o’clock  Sunday  afternoon,  no  great  change  was  noticed  in  his  condition. 
He  remained  in  the  most  feeble  state,  unable  scarcely  to  lift  his  hand  or 
utter  a  word  louder  than  a  whisper,  and  that  with  the  utmost  difficulty. 
About  one  o’clock  Sunday  afternoon  he  became  unconscious,  and  lay  in 
that  condition,  with  slight  intervals  of  reason,  until  he  died.  He  was 
surrounded  at  the  solemn  moment  by  Bishop  McCloskey,  of  Albany ; 
Bishop  Loughlin,  of  Brooklyn;  Rev.  Dr.  hleligan;  Very  Rev.  Father 
Starrs,  V.  G. ;  Rev.  Francis  McNeirny,  Secretary  of  the  Archbishop ; 
Mother  Angela,  Superioress  of  St.  Vincent’s  Hospital,  and  Mrs.  Rodrigues 
(both  sisters  of  the  Archbishop) ;  Drs.  James  R.  Wood  and  Alonzo  Clarke, 
and  a  number  of  clergymen  and  fnends.  About  two  hours  before  his 


THE  OBSEQUIES  OE  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


15 


deatli  lie  was  seized  with  a  series  of  slight  siiasms,  or  gentle  twitches. 
Father  Starrs  stood  by  his  bedside  reading  prayers  for  his  happy  death, 
and  all  present  joined  in  the  solemn  ceremony.  Bishop  McCloskey  recited 
the  prayers  for  the  departing  spirit,  and  while  the  voices  of  all  were 
repeating,  in  broken  accents,  the  words  of  the  responses,  the  soul  of  the 
illustrious  Archbishop  quitted  its  earthly  tenement.  He  died  without  the 
slightest  evidence  of  pain,  peaceful,  calm,  and  collected.  His  two  sisters 
stood  by  his  bedside  at  the  awful  moment,  and  ohe  of  them.  Mother 
Angela,  who  has  beeii  for  many  years  a  Sister  of  Charity,  performed  the 
melancholy  office  of  closing  his  eyes.  So  passed  away  one  of  the  greatest 
men  of  the  age.  A  good  Christian,  an  eloquent  speaker,  a  profound 
scholar,  and  a  patriotic  citizen ;  one  who  loved  his  adopted  country 
dearly,  and  whose  greatest  earthly  ambition,  next  to  his  religion,  was  to 
see  her  the  noblest,  most  powerful,  most  united,  as  she  is  the  freest  nation 
on  the  globe.  In  him  America  has  lost  a  true  citizen,  and  the  Church  ar 
able  defender  and  pious  Divine.  Bequiescat  in  Pace. 

THE  OBSEQUIES. 

SERMON  OF  BISHOP  m’cLOSKEY. 

So  much  has  been  written  and  said  about  the  obsequies,  and  ceremonies 
attending  them,  as  well  as  the  “  lying  in  state”  of  his  Grace’s  remains,  that 
we  think  it  unnecessary  to  recapitulate  them  here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that 
the  body  lay  in  state  in  the  grand  aisle  of  the  Cathedral,  for  two  days,  and 
was  visited  during  that  time  by  over  200,000  people  of  both  sexes,  many  of 
whom  were  Protestants.  On  Thursday,  January  7th,  1864,  the  last 
ceremonies  of  the  Catholic  Church  were  performed  over  the  mortal  remains 
of  the  Most  Kev.  John  Hughes,  Archbishop  of  New  York.  To  say  that  St. 
Patrick’s  Cathedral  was  crowded,  would  convey  but  a  faint  idea  of  the 
state  of  the  building  that  day.  Thousands  could  not  gain  admittance,  and 
had  to  stay  in  the  streets  adjoining  the  building. 

The  scene  within  the  Cathedral  was  one  peculiarly  Catholic  in  all  its 
magnificent  details — one  which  out  of  the  Catholic  Church  could  not  be 
seen  on  earth.  The  mournful  draiiery  that  hung  in  heavy  folds  from  the 
arched  roof  to  the  floor,  wrapj)ing  aisle,  and  arch,  and  column,  wall  and 
doorway,  in  one  sable  veil,  broken  only  by  the  no  less  funereal  white ;  the 
stately  catafalque  occujiying  the  centre  aisle,  and  the  statue-like  flgure  that 
lay  beneath  its  gorgeous  canojiy,  majestic  even  in  death,  yet  placid  and 
calm  to  look  upon — ay ! 

“Calm  as  a  child’s  repose;” 

the  sanctuary  and  a  great  part  of  the  grand  aisle  crowded  with  surpliced 
priests,  amongst  whom  were  eight  Bishops  of  the  Church  ;  the  sad,  sweet 
music,  swelling  at  times  into  wild  sublimity  of  sound.  Ailing  the  holy  fane 
with  the  strangely-mournful  “  melody  of  sweet  sounds the  vast  concourse 
of  men  and  women  that  filled  every  part  of  the  sacred  edifice — all  conspired 


/ 


16 


THE  OBSEQUIES  OP  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


to  form  a  scene  of  uneqnaled  grandeur  and  solemnity.  Let  the  readej 
imagine  eight  bishops  and  some  two  hundred  priests,  assembled  from  the 
dioceses  of  Baltimore,  Butfalo,  Portland,  Hartford,  Philadelphia,  Burlington, 
Boston,  Newark,  Brooklyn,  Albany,  and  from  all  parts  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  York  ;  Jesuits  were  there,  and  Benedictines,  Augustinians,  Passionists, 
Paulists,  and  Redemptorists,  with  two  Canadian  priests,  sent  by  the  Bishop 
of  Montreal  to  represent  the  Church  of  Canada.  In  addition  to  these  were 
present  in  the  body  of  the  Church  a  large  number  of  the  Sisters  of  Charity 
and  Sisters  of  Mercy,  with  several  of  the  Christian  Brothers.  So  much  for 
the  Clergy  and  the  Religious  Orders.  Amongst  the  Societies  rejoresented 
were  those  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul  and  the  Xavier  Alumni  Association. 

The  City  of  New  York  was  represented  by  its  Mayor,  Comptroller,  Sheriff, 
and  the  whole  Municipal  Council ;  the  Army  by  two  Majors-General  and 
three  Brigadiers-General,  with  many  other  distinguished  officers.  The 
legal  profession  was  represented  by  several  judges  and  eminent  lawyers, 
among  whom  were  Judges  Daly,  White,  Sutherland,  &c.  Richard 
O’Gorman,  John  McKeon,  Thurlow  Weed  and  several  other  distinguished 
gentlemen  were  present  at  the  ceremonies. 

At  ten  o’clock  precisely  the  procession  of  Bishops  and  Priests  entered  the 
Cathedral,  and  assembled  round  the  high  altar,  chanting  the  “  Office  for 
the  Dead.”  The  Bishops  were  McCloskey,  Albany ;  Wood,  Philadelphia; 
Timon,  Buffalo ;  Loughlin,  Brooklyn ;  Bayley,  Newark ;  De  Goesbriand, 
Burlington ;  McFarland,  Hartford,  and  Bacon,  Portland.  There  were 
nearly  two  hundred  jiriests  in  and  near  the  sanctuary ;  amongst  them  were 
Very  Rev.  W.  Starrs,  V.  G.,  Administrator;  Archdeacon  McCarron,  Rev. 
IMessrs.  Preston,  Quin,  Cummings,  D.  D.,  E.  McGuire,  McSweney,  D.  D.,  P. 
McGuire,  Curran,  McKenna,  Brennan,  C.  O’Callaghan,  Trainor,  Boyce, 
Briady,  P.  Farrell,  T.  Farrell,  Nobriga,  McClosky,  Everett,  Mooney,  Brady, 
Birdsall,  D.  D. ;  Morrogh,  D.  D. ;  Ferrall,  Loyzance,  S.  J. ;  Daubresse,  S.  J. ; 
Megnard,  S.  J. ;  Schneider,  S.  J. ;  McAleer,  Orsenigo,  Larkin,  Lafont, 
Gambosville,  Donnelly,  Teixchiera,  Dautuer,  Rudolphi,  McCarty,  Egan, 
dowry,  McNulty,  McMahon,  McEvoy,  Nicot,  Hecker,  Hewit,  Brophy,  Breen, 
Joyce,  Mulledy,  McGlynn,  D.  D. ;  Sheehan,  Caro,  Lewis,  Slevin,  Mugan, 
Coyle,  B.  O’Callaghan,  J.  Quin,  W.  Quinn,  Walworth,  O’Toole,  McClelland, 
Barretti,  O’Connor,  Scully,  Woods,  Conrou,  O’Reilly,  Reardan,  McLoughlin, 
Madden,  Dowling,  R.  Brennan,  Barry,  Farelly,  Kinsella,  Lynch,  Neligan, 
D.  D.,  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 

J’urncr,  V.  G. ;  McGuire,  McDonnell,  Keegan,  Farrell,  McGovern,  Fagan, 
Malone,  Pise,  D.  D. ;  O’Neil,  Franscioli,  Bohan,  McKenna,  Gleason,  Crowley, 
Creighton,  McLoughlin,  O’Beirne,  Mclnroe,  Farrelly,  McGorrisk,  Goetz, 
Huber,  Freel,  of  the  Diocese  of  Brooklyn. 

Very  Rev.  O’Hara,  V.  G. ;  Rev.  A.  McConomy,  Chancellor;  Sheridan, 
jffcnahan,  Stanton,  O.  S.  A. ;  McLoughlin,  Crane,  O.  S.  A. ;  Dunn,  McAnany, 
Kieran,  Lane,  McGovern,  Riordan,  Fitzmaurice,  Whitty,  Hasplin,  Davis, 
of  the  Diocese  of  Philadelphia. 

Moran,  V.  G. ;  Doane,  Secretary ;  Kelly,  J.  McQuade,  Hickey,  J.  Moran, 
Preith,  Hogan,  Corrigan,  Cauvain,  Hogan,  Venuta,  De  Concillio,  Braun, 
Hennesy,  Madden,  Lasko,  Rogers,  McKay,  McNulty,  Smith,  Victor,  Biggio, 
Callan,  Bowles,  Senez,  and  a  number  of  Passionists  of  the  Diocese  of 
Newark. 

Conroy,  V.  G. ;  Wadhams,  O’Neil,  Doran,  Noethen,  Havermans,  Daly, 
McLoughlin,  of  the  Diocese  of  Albany. 


THE  FUNERAL  ORATION. 


17 


"William!?,  Y.  G.lMcElroy,  S.  J.;  Healy,  Chancellor  of  the  Diocese  of  Boston. 

Very  Rev.  W.  O’Reilly,  Synnott,  Creighton,  Hughes,  Thomas  Walsh,  Daly, 
O’Brien,  Walsh,  Smyth,  W.  J.  O’Reilly,  Sheridan,  DeBrucyker,  of  the  Diocese 
of  Hartford. 

Rev.  Mr.  Pare,  Secretary  to  the  Bishop  of  Montreal.  Rev.  Canon  Valois, 
of  Montreal.  Thomas  Foley,  Chancellor,  and  E.  McColgan,  of  the  Diocese  of 
Baltimore.  The  Irish  Church  was  respectably  and  fitly  represented  on  the 
mournful  occasion  by  Rev.  D.  W.  Cahill,  D.D. ;  Rev.  P.  Conway,  Ileadford, 
Tuam,  and  Rev.  Mr.  McKenna,  of  the  Diocese  of  Derry. 

The  Solemn  Mass  of  Requiem  was  celebrated  by  Bishop  Timon,  assisted  by 
Father  Starrs  as  Assistant  Priest ;  Rev.  Messrs.  Quinn  and  Preston,  Deacon 
and  Subdeacon ;  Rev.  Messrs.  McNeirny  and  Farrell,  Masters  of  Ceremonies. 
.4.fter  Mass  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  McCloskey  ascended  the  pulpit,  and  read 
for  his  text  7th  and  8th  verses.  Chapter  IV.,  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Paul 
to  Timothy. 


THE  FUNERAL  ORATION. 

I  have  fought  a  good  fight;  I  have  finished  my  course  ;  I  have  kept  the  faith.  For 
the  rest,  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  justice,  which  the  Lord,  the  just  Judge,  will 
render  to  me  at  that  day ;  and  not  to  me  only,  but  to  them  also  who  love  His  coming. 

If  ever  the  words  of  the  living  would  seem  to  issue  forth  or  be  echoed  back 
from  the  bps  of  the  dead,  it  is  now,  when  these  words  which  I  have  just  uttered 
would  appear  rather  as  proceeding  from  the  mouth  of  the  illustrious  departed 
prelate,  whose  venerated  form,  still  clothed  in  all  the  insignia  of  his  high  and 
sacred  office,  lies  here  before  us  in  placid  dignity  and  calm  repose.  Still  we 
fancy  we  hear  him  saying,  “I  have  fought  the  good  fight;  I  have  finished  my 
course  ;  I  have  kept  the  faith.  For  the  rest,  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown 
of  justice,  which  the  just  Judge,  the  Lord,  shall  render  to  me.”  When  these 
words,  beloved  brethren,  were  first  spoken,  or  rather  written,  by  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  it  was  not,  as  we  know,  in  any  spirit  of  boastfulness  or 
self-praise.  They  were  meant  simply  as  the  earnest  expression  of  the  con¬ 
sciousness  which  he  felt  that  the  term  of  his  mortal  labors  was  nearly  expired ; 
that  his  wmrk  was  finished ;  that  his  course  was  run ;  and  that  now,  steadfast 
in  the  faith,  firm  in  hope,  he  only  awaited  the  summons  of  his  Divine  Master 
which  should  call  him  to  his  reward.  They  were  intended,  too,  to  give  courage 
and  strength  and  consolation  to  the  heart  of  his  friend  and  fellow-laborer  in  the 
apostleship,  Timothy ;  and  not  only  to  his  heart,  but  to  the  hearts  of  all  his 
well-beloved  spiritual  children  scattered  throughout  the  Church,  that  when  he 
should  have  passed  away  from  earth,  when  they  should  look  upon  his  face  and 
hear  his  voice  no  more,  they  would  not  yield  themselves  up  to  immoderate 
transports  of  grief,  or  indulge  in  tears  of  merely  unavailing  sorrow,  but  that 
they  would  rather  be  sustained  and  comforted  by  that  grand  and  glorious  faith 
which  he  had  preached  to  them ;  by  the  remembrance  of  all  his  services  and  all 
his  labors,  of  how  he  had  toiled  and  endured,  and  suffered  for  them,  and  how 
by  all  this  and  through  all  this  he  had  won  a  great  reward.  So  even  is  it 
now.  Our  heads  indeed  are  bowed  down  in  sorrow,  our  hearts  are  oppressed 
and  overloaded  with  a  mighty  load  of  grief,  because  our  good  and  great  Arch¬ 
bishop  is  no  more.  He  whom  we  had  loved  so  well,  he  who  was  our  father  and 
our  benefactor,  our  kind  and  trusted  friend ;  he  who  was  our  pride  and  joy ; 
he  who'so  long  stood  up  among  us  as  a  pillar  of  safety  and  a  tower  of  strength — ■ 
he  is  no  more.  That  voice  of  eloquence,  those  inspiring  harangues,  those 
lessons  of  wisdom,  those  paternal  counsels,  those  earnest  and  ceaseless  exhor¬ 
tations  which  so  often  delighted  our  ears,  instructed  our  minds,  filled  with 
transports  of  joy  our  hearts — all  this  we  shall  hear  no  more.  And  we  would 
2 


18 


THE  OBSEQUIES  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


be  tempted  to  yield  ourselves  up  solely  to  the  emotions  of  our  grief  were  it  not 
that  we  do  still  think  that  we  hear  him  say,  “  Weep  not,  dear  children,  grieve 
not  for  me.  Be  comforted  by  the  thought  that  I  have  fought  the  good  f  ght ;  the 
work  that  was  given  me  to  accomplish  has  been  finished.  I  have  run  1113'^  course ;  I 
have  ke[)t  the  faith.  I  now  simply  await  my  crown.”  Our  loss,  indeed,  beloved 
brethren,  is  great.  IIow  great,  how  deepl3'  and  sincerely  felt,  has  been  made 
manifest  by  all  that  has  been  presented  to  our  eyes  since  the  moment  his  spirit 
took  its  flight  from  this  lower  world,  b3'  all  those  manifestations  of  love  and 
gratitude  and  highest  feeling  which  a  devoted  people  have  been  pa3dng  by 
hundreds  and  thousands,  day  after  day,  in  pressing  forward  to  show  their  last 
tribute  of  respect  even  to  his  cold  remains,  and  to  look  upon  his  face  once  more 
for  the  last  time.  And  it  is  not  our  loss  alone,  not  the  loss  of  a  single  congre¬ 
gation  or  a  single  diocese,  but  it  is  a  loss  of  the  whole  Church,  a  loss  felt  by 
every  Catholic  heart  throughout  the  land.  For  we  do  not  doubt,  we  cannot 
doubt,  that  when  the  electric  spark  carried  with  its  lightning  speed  tidings  of 
his  death  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  countr}^,  it  thrilled  every 
heart,  especially  every  Catholic  heart,  with  a  pang  of  agony.  And  it  filled  all 
breasts,  even  those  who  were  not  of  the  same  church  or  faith,  with  sentiments 
of  deep  and  sincere  regret.  His  fiimo  and  his  name,  and  his  services,  too,  were 
of  the  whole  country ;  and,  I  ma}’  say,  of  the  whole  world.  He  stood  forward 
pre-eminently  as  the  great  Prelate  of  the  Church  in  this  country,  as  its  able 
and  heroic  champion,  as  the  defender  of  its  faith,  as  the  advocate  of  its  rights,  as 
the  ever-vigilant  guardian  of  its  honor.  He  was  not  only  a  great  prelate,  but 
he  was  a  great  man ;  one  who  has  left  his  mark  upon  the  age  in  which  he  lived, 
one  who  has  made  an  impression  upon  every'  Catholic  mind  in  this  country 
which  time  can  never  efface.  Of  such  a  life  and  such  a  character,  and  such  a 
history,  beloved  brethren,  it  would  not  be  possible  for  me  to  speak  in  any 
adequate  or  becoming  manner  at  this  solemn  and  mournful  moment.  I  cannot 
disguise  from  myself^  I  cannot  disguise  froai  you,  that  I  would  at  any  time, 
and  least  of  all  a  time  like  this,  be  wholly  unequal  to  the  task.  But  on  a 
future  and  more  fitting  opportunity,  on  what  is  called  the  “Month’s  Mind,” 
due  justice,  we  cannot  doubt,  will  be  given  to  that  character  and  to  that  life, 
and  to  those  heroic  deeds  and  mighty  services,  by  one  more  fit  and  more  com¬ 
petent  for  the  task.  I  am  here  simply  to  mingle  my  sympathies  with  ymurs, 
merely  to  unite  with  you  in  paying  to  our  Archbishop  upon  this  day  the  tribute 
not  only  of  our  sincere  admiration  and  deepest  veneration  and  respect,  but  also, 
and  still  more,  the  tribute  of  our  heartfelt  gratitude  and  love.  It  was,  beloved 
brethren — as  many  of  you  may  remember — it  was  on  this  day,  the  next  after 
the  solemn  feast  of  the  Epiphanyq  just  twenty-six  years  ago,  that  that  same 
form  that  is  here  before  us,  motionless,  cold  in  death,  stood  up  in  the  sanc¬ 
tuary  and  before  the  altar  of  this  Cathedral,  nearly,  almost  precisel}',  upon  the 
very  spot  where  those  remains  now  are — for  this  Cathedral  was  not  as  spacious 
then  as  now — stood  up  in  all  the  fullness  of  health  and  vigor,  in  all  the  freshness 
and  maturity  of  great  intellectual  as  well  as  physical  strength  and  power,  and 
then  knelt  before  the  venerable  Bishop  Dubois  to  become  a  consecrated  Bishop 
on  that  day.  The  holy  unctions  were  poured  upon  his  head,  the  hands  of 
bishops  were  imposed,  solemn  prayers  of  the  Church  w'ere  recited,  the  mitre 
was  placed  upon  his  brow,  the  ring  upon  his  finger,  the  crozier  within  his 
band,  and  he  rose  up  to  hike  his  place  from  henceforth  and  to  the  end  among 
the  Bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church.  1  ivell  remember  that  grand  and  imposing 
scene,  contra.sting  so  mournfully  with  that  which  is  now  before  me.  I  remember 
how  all  were  fixed,  how  all  eyes  were  strained  to  get  a  glimpse  of  their 
newly  consecrated  Bishop ;  and  as  they  saw  that  dignified  and  manly  coun¬ 
tenance,  as  they  beheld  those  features  beaming  with  the  light  of  intellect, 
bearing  already  upon  them  the  impress  of  that  force  of  character  which 
peculiarly  ma’’kcd  him  throughout  his  life,  that  fii’mucss  of  resolution,  that 


THE  FUNERAL  ORATION. 


19 


unalterable  and  unbending  will,  and  yet  blending  at  the  same  time  that  great 
benignity  and  suavity  of  expression  —when  they  marked  the  quiet  composure 
and  self-possession  of  every  look  and  every  gesture  of  bis  whole  gait  and 
demeanor— all  hearts  were  drawn  and  warmed  towards  him.  Every  pulse 
within  that  vast  assembly,  both  of  clergy  and  of  laity,  was  quickened  with  a 
higher  sense  of  courage  and  of  hope.  Ever}''  breast  was  filled  with  joy,  and, 
as  it  were,  with  a  new  and  younger  might.  Great  expectations,  indeed,  had 
already  been  formed.  We  had  heard  of  him  before.  We  had  heard  of  him  as 
the  piistor  of  St.  John’s  Church  of  Philadelphia — of  his  great  eloquence  as  a 
preacher — of  his  pow'erful  arguinents  in  discussion,  in  controversy,  in  debate ; 
and  we  all  looked  forward  with  joy  and  longing  expectation  to  the  career  upon 
which  he  was  just  now  entering.  Those  hopes  were  not  disappointed ;  those 
expectations  were  even  more  than  fully  realized.  It  was  with  the  greatest 
reluctance  that  the  then  young  bishop  had  consented  to  accept  the  dignity  that 
had  been  offered  to  him.  There  was  a  trying  and  delicate  task  before  him. 
His  humility  and  his  modesty  shrank  from  it,  and  it  was  only  in  obedience  to 
the  call  of  his  superiors  and  the  voice  of  the  Church  that  he  bowed  in  sub- 
m.ission  to  please  the  holy  will  of  God.  But  once  having  put  his  hand  to  the 
plougli,  he  never  looked  back.  From  that  hour  and  from  that  moment  all  the 
great  energy  of  his  mind,  heart,  soul,  and  of  his  whole  being,  was  devoted  to 
the  great  work  which  was  before  him.  He  was  willing  to  spend  and  to  be 
spent  for  Christ.  He  thought  never  of  himself,  he  thought  only  of  the  Church 
of  w'hich  he  was  the  consecrated  prelate,  of  the  religion  and  the  interests 
of  religion  which  had  been  intrusted  to  his  keeping.  ISrevcr  did  he  fail  or 
falter  in  fidelity  to  his  trust.  "We  all  kno'w  how  soon  the  work,  if  it  may 
be  so  called,  of  regeneration  commenced. 

The  good  and  venerable  Bishop  Dubois,  bowed  down  by  years,  was  too 
glad  to  yield  the  government  of  such  a  vast  diocese  into  younger  and 
stronger  hands.  Soon  we  felt,  and  all  felt,  that  the  reins  of  administration 
were  held  by  a  masterly,  and  a  firm,  and  at  the  same  time,  a  prudent  and 
a  skillful  grasp.  Immediately  we  saw  the  evidence  everywhere  around  us 
of  the  power  of  his  mind,  and  the  wisdom  of  his  judgment,  and  the  disin¬ 
terestedness  and  single-heartedness  of  his  zeal.  I  will  not  attempt  to  enter 
into  any  details.  For,  as  I  have  said  before,  this  is  not  the  time  nor  the 
occasion.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  remember,  l)ecausc  it  is  within  the  memory 
of  all,  what  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  the  Catholic  Church  within  the 
State  of  New  York,  or  I  may  say  of  this  country,  was  when  he  commenced 
his  career  as  Bishop  of  this  great  See,  and  what  it  was  when  he  laid  down 
his  honors  at  the  foot  of  his  Divine  Master,  to  bid  us  his  last  farewell. 
There  are  five  dioceses  now  where  there  was  then  but  one ;  clergymen 
count  by  hundreds  where  they  were  before  numbered  by  tens ;  churches, 
institutions  of  charity,  of  religion,  of  learning,  springing  up  on  every  side ; 
the  whole  character  of  the  Catholic  people  raised  and  elevated  till  it  seemed 
that,  from  the  eminence  on  which  he  stood  himself,  he  raised  up  all  his 
people  towards  him.  Great  works  had  been  commenced  and  finished  by 
him.  Noble  works  had  been  commenced,  but  not  given  to  him  to  com¬ 
plete.  'One  of  the  last  acts  of  his  life,  as  you  remember,  was  the  laying  of 
the  foundation-stone  of  his  no'ole  Cathedral.  He  did  not  expect,  he  did 
not  promise  himself  the  joy  and  pleasure  of  living  to  see  its  full  completion. 
But  he  intended  that  he  should  begin  it,  that  he  should  lay  its  broad 
foundation-stone — that  he  would  leave  to  a  devoted  clergy  and  to  a  loving 
and  generous  peojilc  to  carry  it  on,  to  raise  it  up  and  stand  it  there  as  the 
ever  living  and  undying  monument  to  his  memory  and  to  his  name.  It  was 
not  to  be  expected  that  the  life  of  such  a  great  laborer  w'ould  be  carried  to 
very  many  years.  He  sank  under  the  weight  of  his  cares  and  his  too  great 
toil.  He  had  overtaxed,  many  a  time  and  oft,  both  his  physical  and  his  men- 


20 


THE  OBSEQUIES  OF  A^RCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


tal  powers ;  and  strong  and  vigorous  as  they  were,  in  the  end  they  had  to 
succumb.  He  was  in  feeble  health  for  the  last  four  or  five  years  of  his  life. 
Yet  his  mind  was  strong,  and  clear,  and  vigorous  as  ever.  Still  he  knew 
his  strength  was  failing,  that  the  term  of  his  mortal  career  was  drawing  to 
an  end.  When  the  announcement  was  made  to  him  that  his  disease  had 
reached  its  crisis,  and  there  was  no  longer  hope  of  life,  he  received  it  with 
the  same  calm  courage  and  composure  as  he  would  the  announcement  of 
any  ordinary  intelligence.  Immediately  he  prepared  himself.  The  confes¬ 
sor  was  sent  for.  He  made  his  confession  with  all  the  humility  of  a  child. 
He  received  and  was  fortified  by  the  last  Sacraments  of  his  Church.  Then 
he  awaited  calmly  and  peaceably  the  summons  of  his  Lord.  He  spent  his 
last  day  simply  in  communing  with  his  heart  and  his  God.  He  uttered 
but  few  words.  He  gave  a  loving  look  of  recognition  to  his  friends  who 
came  and  stood  by  his  bedside.  He  spoke  by  his  looks,  not  by  his  lips. 
After  an  illness  not  very  long,  after  a  brief  struggle,  he  returned  his  great 
and  noble  spirit  to  his  God.  He  died  full  of  years  and  full  of  honors, 
leaving  behind  him  a  record  which  no  prelate  of  the  Church  in  this 
country  has  ever  left  before,  or  will  ever  leave  again.  For  it  can  be  said 
without  any  invidiousness  that  he  stood  out  prominently  and  pre-eminently, 
as  we  have  already  said,  as  the  great  prelate  of  the  American  Church.  He 
stood  forth  as  its  representative,  as  its  advocate,  and  its  defender ;  and  all 
recognized  his  superior  power  and  his  great  ability.  In  looking  back  now 
upon  that  life  through  the  softened  and  gentle  lustre  which  death  has 
already  thrown  around  it,  it  seems  to  rise  up — its  character  appears  to  rise 
up  in  even  colossal  sublimity  and  grandeur.  All  former  prejudices  are 
forgotten,  all  animosities  laid  aside,  all  differences  and  collisions,  either  of 
views  or  feelings  and  opinions,  all  melt  and  fall  away  in  that  august,  and 
imposing,  and  venerable  presence.  We  think  only  of  the  great  prelate  and 
the  great  man,  of  his  mighty  deeds,  of  his  unequaled  services  to  the  Church ; 
we  think  only  of  the  rare  endowments  of  his  mind  and  heart,  and  how  fully 
and  unreservedly  they  were  devoted  to  the  cause  of  his  Divine  Master.  If 
I  may  be  permitted  to  say  it,  there  was  one  trait  that  distinguished  our 
great  Archbishop  most  particularly.  It  was  his  singular  force,  and  clear¬ 
ness,  and  vigor  of  intellect,  his  strength  of  will  and  his  firmness  of  resolution. 
He  was  a  stranger  to  fear.  His  heart  was  full  of  undaunted  courage.  In 
the  presence  of  difficulties  and  dangers,  his  energies  only  seemed  to  be 
roused  to  greater  strength  and  higher  exertion.  He  never  quailed  before 
the  presence  of  any  difficulty,  or  any  danger,  or  any  trial ;  not  that  he 
trusted  wholly  and  solely  on  himself  He  trusted  in  his  cause,  and  he 
trusted  in  that  God  to  whose  service  he  had  pledged  himself  and  devoted 
his  entire  being.  With  these  rare  endowments  of  mind  were  combined 
also  the  gentler  and  more  captivating  qualities  of  the  heart.  He  was  to  us 
all  the  kindest  of  fathers ;  he  was  to  us  the  most  faithful  of  friends.  His 
heart  was  full  of  tenderness  for  the  poor,  and  for  the  oppressed,  and  for  the 
afflicted.  It  was  full,  too,  of  gentle  warmth  and  sunshine ;  and  if  there 
appeared  at  times  an  occasional  tinge  of  severity  belonging  to  his  character, 
it  was  not  the  natural  temper  of  the  man.  The  genuine  impulses  and 
feelings  of  his  heart  were  all  impulses  of  kindness  and  of  pity.  He  knew 
no  selfishness.  He  despised  everything  that  was  mean  and  little.  He 
could  never  stoop  to  any  low  trickery  or  artifice  in  his  dealings  with  men. 
He  was  unselfish  and  disinterested  in  everything  that  he  undertook  for 
the  cause  of  the  people,  in  every  service  he  rendered  either  to  religion  or  to 
his  country.  ^  And  we  have  this  to  say  in  conclusion,  that  if  ever  there  was 
u  man  who,  in  the  whole  history  and  character  of  his  life,  impressed  upon 
us  the  sense  and  the  conviction  that  he  had  been  raised  up  by  God,  was 
cliGsen  as  His  instrument  to  do  an  appointed  w  h'k,  and  was  strengthened 


THE  FUNERAL  ORATION. 


21 


by  His  grace  and  supported  by  His  wisdom  for  the  accomplishment  of  the 
work  for  which  he  had  been  chosen  and  appointed,  fliat  man  was  Arch¬ 
bishop  Hughes.  He  was,  from  the  beginning  until  the  end,  clearly  and 
plainly  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  God.  Such  he  felt  himself ;  as  such 
he  lived;  as  such  he  died.  For  us,  beloved  brethren,  there  remains  now 
only  the  last  debt  of  affection  and  filial  duty,  which  is  to  pray  for  the 
eternal  reiiose  of  his  soul.  We  do  not  claim  for  him,  we  do  not  claim  for 
any  man,  no  matter  how  exalted  in  the  Church,  exemption  from  human 
frailty  and  human  infirmity.  He  parted  from  this  world,  as  we  have  said, 
tranquil,  and  prepared  by  all  the  Sacraments  of  the  Church,  by  a  life  of 
sincere  and  unostentatious  piety,  by  a  heart  truly  devoted  to  his  God.  Hut 
still,  if  through  human  frailty  there  should  yet  remain  some  stain  upon  that 
great  soul  to  be  expiated  and  washed  away  before  it  will  be  so  pure  and 
uudefiled  as  to  be  worthy  to  enter  the  presence  of  God,  oh,  let  us  give  to 
him,  with  all  our  earnest  faith,  all  our  heartfelt  suffrages  and  prayers.  For 
our  faith  teaches,  and  it  is  our  beautiful  and  consoling  belief,  that  though 
parted  in  the  body,  our  spirits  are  still  united,  and  that  we  may  still  love 
him,  may  still  pray  for  him,  aye,  even  perhaps  be  able  to  aid  him  by  our 
poor,  but  humble  and  earnest  j)rayer.  You,  my  brother  jirelates  of  the 
Church  of  God,  will  especially  pi’ay  for  him ;  ive  who  have  toiled  and 
labored  by  his  side — we  who  knew  him  well,  who  were  so  often  assisted  by 
his  counsels  and  aided  by  his  wisdom,  let  us  pray  for  him.  And  you 
faithful  and  venerable  pastors  and  clergy  of  the  Archdiocese,  upon  many 
of  whom  he  has  laid  his  venerable  hands,  to  whom  you  have  so  long  looked 
to  as  your  comfort  and  your  pride,  do  you  pray  for  him.  And  you  holy 
virgins  of  the  Church,  spouses  of  Jesus  Christ,  do  you  pray  for  him.  And 
you  little  ones,  fivtherless  and  motherless,  orphans  in  the  Church,  he  was 
your  loving  parent  and  generous  benefactor ;  pray  for  him.  Catholics, 
one  and  all,  rich  and  poor,  high  and  low,  of  every  rank  and  every  condition, 
you  owe  him  a  debt  of  gratitude  you  never  can  repay ;  at  least,  oh  pray 
for  him.  Requiem  (Bternum  dona  eis  Romine.  .Et  lux  perpetua  luceit  eis. 
Eternal  rest  give  to  him,  oh  Lord,  and  let  perpetual  light  shine  on  him.  In 
a  moment  more  you  will  bid  adieu  to  what  still  remains  of  him  here.  In  a 
moment  more,  with  his  mitre  on  his  head,  clothed  in  the  insignia  of  his 
high  office,  he  will  go,  as  it  were,  in  solemn  procession,  bidding  you  all  a 
last  adieu — go  to  take  his  place  with  the  jirelates  who  went  before  him,  and 
who,  beneath  the  vaults  of  this  venerable  Cathedral,  now  sleep  the  sleep  of 
peace.  He  will  go,  and  the  chants  and  prayers  of  the  Church  will  surround 
him  ;  and  as  the  tones  of  that  solemn  dirge  and  of  those  touching  prayers 
resound  beneath  these  vaults,  we  still  will  fancy  we  hear  in  sad,  responsive 
tones,  commingling  with  them,  and  lingering  still  behind  after  them  :  “  I 

have  fought  a  goocl  fight ;  I  have  run  my  course  ;  I  have  kept  the  faith  ;  I 
now  go  to  receive  my  crown.” 

Immediately  after  the  discourse  had  been  delivered  the  solemn  ceremony 
of  the  Absolution  commenced.  This  was  performed  Avith  all  the  impres¬ 
sive  and  sacred  formalities  the  ceremony  allows  :  The  Bishops  making  a 
circuit  around  the  catafalque  three  times,  sprinkling  Holy  Water.  After 
these  ceremonies  Avere  gone  through  with,  the  undertakers  then  approached 
the  catafalque,  and  placed  all  the  floral  Avreaths  and  roses  in  the  coffin. 
Six  clergymen  then  placed  the  coffin  on  their  shoulders,  and,  while  the 
clergymen  and  choir  chanted  a  solemn  dirge,  the  remains  were  conveyed 
in  mournful  procession  through  the  Church,  Avhile  the  entire  congregation 
stood  gazing  earnestly,  for  the  last  time,  at  the  face  of  the  Archbishop, 
which  appeared  distinctly  above  the  head  of  the  coffin,  calm  and  peaceful 
in  the  eternal  sleep  of  death.  The  scene  was  such  as  has  never  been  wit¬ 
nessed  in  this  city  before.  There  was  a  sadness  and  a  quiet  solemnity  in 


22 


OBSEQUIES  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


it  that  struck  the  V9.st  congregation  with  sorrow  and  awe.  The  feelings 
of  all  were  strung  to  the  highest  pitch,  and  many  a  sob  and  subdued  groan 
was  heard  in  the  midst  of  the  solemn  stillness.  The  procession  moved 
out  of  the  Cathedral  to  the  vault  in  which  repose  the  remains  of  Bishop 
Dubois,  Bishop  Connolly,  and  others  of  the  clergy.  After  depositing  the 
body  in  its  appropriate  place,  the  procession  re-entered  the  Church,  the 
low,  solemn  tones  of  the  Be  fi'ofxmMs  swelling  up  through  the  aisles  as  it 
passed  along.  The  remains  of  the  deceased  Archbishop,  however,  will 
not  rest  permanently  in  their  present  place.  It  is  intended  to  have  a 
magnificent  tomb  for  them  erected  in  the  nev.^  Cathedral,  as  soon  as  it  is 
finished. 

ACTION  OF  ST.  PATRICK’S  TRUSTEES,  THE  COURTS,  AND  THE 

COMMON  COUNCIL. 

A  special  meeting  of  the  Board  was  held  on  the  evening  of  the  4th 
Jan. —present,  Messrs.  John  Kelly,  O’Connor,  O’Donnell,  H.  Kelly,  McKin¬ 
ley,  Lynch,  Hegan,  Dolin,  and  Carolin.  On  motion,  Mr.  John  Kelly  was 
called  to  the  chair,  and  Mr.  Carolin  acted  as  Secretary.  The  Chairman 
stated  that  the  m.eeting  had  been  called  for  the  purpose  of  taking  action 
in  reference  to  the  demise  of  the  late  Most  Reverend  Archbishop  Hughes. 
Thereupon,  on  motion,  the  following  gentlemen  were  appointed  to  draw  up 
resolutions  expressive  of  the  feelings  of  the  Board,  and  publish  the  same 
in  such  newspapers  as  they  may  select.  Thereujron  Messrs.  O’Connor  and 
Carolin  were  apjjointed,  and  to  which  committee  the  chairman  was  added. 
It  was  then  resolved  that  the  Board  form  themselves  into  a  Committee  of 
Arrangements  for  the  funeral  services  on  Thursday,  7th  inst.,  and  that  such 
Committee  meet  in  the  session-room  of  the  Board  on  Thursday,  7th  inst., 
at  eight  o’clock  a.  m.  The  following  resolutions  were  also  adopted  : 

liesolved,  That  in  the  death  of  the  Most  Reverend  John  Hughes,  D.  D.,  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  New  York,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  laments  the  loss  of  an  illustrious 
prelate  whose  life  was  devoted  to  the  promulgation  of  her  faith,  and  who  by  his 
labors  extended  the  benign  influence  of  her  sacred  teachings. 

Resolved,  That  with  grateful  recognition  we  record  that,  from  the  first  moment 
of  his  entering  upon  the  duties  of  his  mission  in  this  diocese  until  the  close  of  his 
mortal  cai'eer,  he  upheld  with  unfaltering  arm  the  banner  of  our  Holj-  Church, 
and  zealously  promoted  the  welfare  of  those  confided  to  his  spiritual  care  and 
protection.  The  numerous  churches,,  colleges,  seminaries  of  learning  and  religious 
orders,  the  hospitals  and  asylums  called  into  existence  by  his  industry  and  energy, 
will  long  remain  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  his  religious  zeal  and  the  benevo¬ 
lence  of  his  heart. 

Resolved,  That  we  recall  with  pride  the  many  instances  in  which  our  Most  Rev¬ 
erend  Archbishop  stood  forth  as  the  champion  of  our  Faith,  of  Education,  and 
Civil  and  Religious  Liberty  ;  illustrating  in  his  career  the  virtues  of  a  Pastor 
attached  to  his  flock,  and  the  ability  of  a’  Statesman  anxious  for  the  welfare  of  his 
country.  Exiled  in  early  life  from  the  land  of  his  birth,  he  deeply  sympathized 
with  her  sufferings  and  sorrow,  his  eloquent  and  powerful  voice  being  always 
raised  in  advocacy  of  her  rights  and  in  indignation  against  her  wrongs.  The 
land  of  his  adoption  vail  cherish  the  remembrance  of  his  disinterested  patriotism 
and  devotion  to  her  interests  and  honor. 

Resolved,  That  while  we  bow  in  humility  to  the  dispensation  of  the  Almighty, 
who  has  taken  from  us  our  beloved  Pastor,  we  are  consoled  by  the  reflection  that 
the  memory  of  his  virtues  and  labors  will  endure  to  animate  those  who  are  to 
follow  him  in  the  great  mission  of  charitj’,  education,  and  of  our  holy  religion, 
with  his  spirit  of  devotion  to  the  advancement  of  our  holy  faith  and  the  greater 
glory  of  God. 

All  the  Courts  in  session  in  this  city  adjourned  from  Wednesday  to 


RESOLUTIONS  OF  THE  COMMON  COUNCIL,  ETC. 


2S 

Friday,  out  of  respect  to  the  illustrious  dead,  and  in  order  that  the 
judges,  lawyers,  and  jurors  might  be  able  to  attend  the  funeral  ceremonies 
on  Thursday.  Nearly  all  our  city  judges,  irrespective  of  religion,  attended 
the  obsequies. 

On  Monday,  January  4th,  Mayor  Gunther  sent  in  a  message  to  both 
Boards  of  the  City  Government  announcing  the  death  of  Archbishop 
Hughes,  and  recommending  that  some  action  be  taken  in  reference  to  it. 
Accordingly,  a  special  meeting  of  the  Aldermen  and  Councilmen  took 
place  on  Wednesday  evening,  January  6th,  when  preaml^le  and  resolutions 
were  read  and  adopted.  It  was  resolved  in  the  Board  of  Councilmen  : 

That,  in  the  death  of  John  Hughes,  Archbishop  of  New  York,  the  country  is 
called  upon  to  mourn  the  loss  of  a  conservative,  influential,  and  enlightened 
citizen ;  tlie  City  of  New  York  has  lost  a  great  and  good  man  ;  the  numerous, 
intelligent  and  conservative  denomination  of  Christians,  of  which  he  was  the 
acknowledged  head  in  this  country,  has  lost  a  wise,  zealous,  and  indefatigable 
advocate  and  guide ;  the  religion  of  which  he  was  such  a  conscientious  and  devoted 
disciple  has  lost  an  able  and  powerful  advocate,  and  in  its  peculiar  tenets,  a 
learned  expounder. 

Resolved,  That  out  of  respect  for  the  memory  of  the  deceased  prelate,  and  in 
consideration  of  his  private  virtues  and  public  services,  this  Common  Council 
will  attend  his  funeral  in  a  body,  with  their  staffs  of  office  draped  in  mourning  ; 
that  they  will  cause  the  flags  to  be  displayed  at  half-mast  on  the  City  Hall  and 
the  other  public  buildings  on  the  day  set  apart  for  the  funeral  rites  and  cere¬ 
monies  ;  that  the  public  buildings  and  offices  of  the  Corporation  be  closed  on 
that  day,  and  that  a  special  committee  of  five  members  from  each  Board  be 
appointed  to  make  the  necessary  arrangements  for  attending  the  obsequies. 

It  was  also  resolved  that  a  copy  of  the  preamble  and  resolutions  be 
engrossed  and  sent  to  Father  Starrs.  The  same  resolutions  were  adopted 
by  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  and  both  attended  the  obsequies,  accompanied 
by  the  Mayor. 

The  Trustees  of  the  Cathedral  extended  invitations  to  the  following  to 
attend  the  obsequies ;  Sisters  of  Religious  Orders ;  President  of  the 
United  States  and  Cabinet;  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York  and 
Staff;  Foreign  Dignitaries  ;  Members  of  Judiciary  ;  Members  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature  ;  Mayor  and  OtScers  of  the  Common  Council ;  Board  of  Supervis¬ 
ors  ;  Board  of  Education ;  Heads  of  Departments  ;  Commissioners  of 
Charities  and  Correction  ;  Dissenting  Clergymen ;  Gen.  John  A.  Dix  and 
Staff;  Gen.  Hays  and  Staff;  Army  and  Navy  Officers ;  Delegations  from 
Medical  Societies ;  Representatives  of  Jesuit  Colleges  ;  Delegation  of  St. 
Vincent  de  Paul  Society ;  Distinguished  Catholics  ;  Distinguished  Protest¬ 
ants  ;  Strangers  from  abroad.  All  of  the  above  persons  invited  did  not 
attend.  Neither  the  President  and  Cal)inet,  nor  the  Governor  of  New 
York  were  present,  as  we  presume  their  respective  duties  would  not  allow 
them  to  be  absent.  The  State  Legislature  at  Albany  passed  resolutions  in 
regard  to  the  death  of  the  Archbishop.  They  were  passed,  after  some 
opiiosition  from  a  Mr.  Douglass,  of  Oneida  County,  by  a  vote  of  76  yeas 
to  14  nays.  The  Commissioners  of  “  Public  Charities  and  Correction  ’* 
held  a  meeting  on  the  7th  Jan.,  and  passed  resolutions  of  regret  at  the 
death  of  the  ikrchbishop,  and  voted  to  attend  the  obsequies  in  a  body. 


24 


OBSEQUIES  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


LETTERS  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  SEC¬ 
RETARY  SEWARD,  AND  GOVERNOR  SEYMOUR  ON  THE  DEATH 
OF  THE  ARCHBISHOP. 

The  following  letters  were  received  in  reply  to  invitations  to  attend  the 
obsequies  of  the  Most  Reverend  Arehbishop  : 

From  the  President. 

Department  of  State,  Washington,  Jan.  13,  1864. 
Very  Pev.  Wm.  Starrs,  Administrator  of  the  Diocese  of  Neto  YorTi  ; 

Very  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, — The  President  of  the  United  States  has 
put  into  iny  hands  the  invitation  to  the  funeral  obsequies  of  the  late  Arch¬ 
bishop  Hughes,  with  which  he  was  favored  by  you.  While  it  ivas  imjiossi- 
ble  for  him  to  accept  the  invitation,  he  has,  nevertheless,  earnestly  desired 
to  find  some  practicable  mode  of  manifesting  the  sorrow  with  which  he 
received  intelligence  of  that  distinguished  Prelate’s  demise,  and  his  sym- 
jiathy  with  his  countrymen,  and  with  the  religious  communion  over  which 
the  deceased  presided,  in  their  great  bereavement.  I  have,  therefore,  on 
his  behalf,  to  request  that  you  will  make  known  in  such  manner  as  will 
seem  to  you  most  appropriate,  that  having  formed  the  Archbishop’s 
acquaintance  in  the  earliest  days  of  our  country’s  present  troubles,  his 
counsel  and  advice  were  gladly  sought  and  continually  received  by  the 
Government  on  those  points  which  his  position  enabled  him  better  than 
others  to  consider.  At  a  conjuncture  of  deep  interest  to  the  country,  the 
Archbishop,  associated  with  others,  went  abroad  and  did  the  nation  a 
service  there,  with  all  the  loyalty,  fidelity,  and  practical  wisdom  which, 
on  so  many  other  occasions,  illustrated  his  great  ability  for  administration. 
Humbly  hoping  that  the  loss  which  the  Church  and  the  State  have  sus¬ 
tained  in  the  removal  of  the  Head  of  your  Arch  diocese,  may,  through  the 
blessing  of  God,  be  repaired,  so  that  what  has  been  an  unspeakable  gain 
to  him  may  not  be  a  permanent  cause  of  sorrow  to  them, 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  respeetfullj",  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  H.  SEWARD. 


From  Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward. 

Washington,  January  5,  1864. 

Vei'y  Rev,  Wm.  Starrs,  Administrator  of  the  Diocese  of  New  YorTc : 

Very  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, — I  regret  more  deeply  than  I  can  express 
that  indispensable  ofiicial  engagements  will  deprive  me  of  the  sad  satisfac¬ 
tion  of  attending  the  obsequies  of  the  late  Archbishop,  and  thus  manifest¬ 
ing,  in  the  only  way  now  possible,  the  respect  and  afiection  which  I  have 
so  long  cherished  towards  him  as  a  faithful  friend,  a  pious  prelate,  a  loyal 
patriot,  a  great  and  a  good  man. 

W.  H.  SEWARD. 

F'om  Hon.  Horatio  Seymour,  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  YorTc : 

State  of  New  York,  Executive  Department,  \ 
Albany,  January  5,  1864.  J 

Very  Rev.  Wm.  Starrs,  Administrator  of  the  Diocese  of  New  YorTc : 

Very  Rev.  Dear  Sir,^ — I  have  received  your  announcement  of  the 
death  c'f  Archbishop  Plughes,  and  your  invitation  to  attend  his  funeral. 


month’s  mind  ceremonies. 


25 


As  the  Legislature  has  just  assembled,  it  is  not  possible  for  me  to  leave 
the  capital  of  the  State.  I  regret  it  is  not  in  my  power  to  show,  by  my 
attendance,  my  respect  for  the  memory  of  one  of  the  marked  men  of  the 
country.  The  life-long  labors  of  the  late  Archbishop  will  tell  for  a  long 
period  upon  the  literature,  the  religion,  and  the  charitable  institutions  of 
our  land.  In  a  few  years  the  City  of  New  York  will  be  adorned  by  a 
magnificent  cathedral,  the  broad  foundations  of  which  were  lait.  under  his 
supervision  and  care.  So,  too,  in  the  future,  will  the  interests  of  learning, 
religion,  and  charity  be  built  upon  the  ground-works  which  he  has  estab¬ 
lished  during  his  long  and  laborious  life.  The  progress  of  events  and  the 
growth  of  our  country  will  not  throw  his  memory  into  the  shade,  but  they 
will  develop  and  make  more  clear  his  influence  upon  the  social  condition 
of  our  people. 

Truly  yours,  HOEATIO  SEYMOUR. 


THE  MONTH’S  MIND  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUG-HES. 

SERMON  OP  BISHOP  LOUGHLIN. 

The  solemn  service  appointed  by  the  Catholic  Church  for  the  thirtieth 
day  after  burial,  was  on  Wednesday,  the  3d  February,  celebrated  with 
the  customary  form  and  ceremony  in  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral,  for  the  happy 
repose  of  Archbishop  Hughes.  The  Church  was  tastefully  and  artistically 
draped  in  mourning,  as  on  the  occasion  of  the  Obsequies,  and  the  stately 
catafalque  which  graced  the  grand  aisle,  in  front  of  the  altar,  was  a  model 
of  fine  taste.  On  its  centre  was  placed  a  large  funeral  urn  surmounted  by  a 
cross,  and  over  it  was  suspended  the  purple  stole  of  the  illustrious  prelate, 
whose  mitre  stood  on  the  foot  of  the  mimic  coffin,  sad  mementoes  of  the 
dead.  There  was  one  Archbishop  and  six  Bishops  present. 

The  following  are  the  names  of  the  Bishops  and  Clergy  present,  so  far  as 
could  be  ascertained  at  the  time :  Most  Rev.  Archbishop  Connolly,  of 
Halifax,  N.  S. ;  Bishops  Bayley,  Newark ;  Timon,  Bufl'alo ;  Loughliu, 
Brooklyn;  Domenec,  Pittsburg;  Farrell,  Hamilton,  C.  W. ;  Lynch,  To¬ 
ronto,  C.  W. ;  Very  Rev.  Father  Starrs,  V.  G.,  Administrator;  Rev.  Messrs. 
Baker,  Farrell,  Deshon,  W.  Quinn,  Brennan,  McNulty,  Moylan,  S.  J. ;  Loy- 
zance,  S.  J.,  Driscol,  S.  J.,  Walworth,  O’Callahan,  Conron,  Mooney,  Breen, 
Clowrey,  McKenna,  McLoughlin,  Barry,  Boyce,  Nelligan,  D.  D.,  McMa¬ 
hon,  Lynch,  McClellan,  McEvoy,  Orsenigo,  Hecker,  McCarthy,  Briady, 
Treanor,  Mignault,  S.  J.,  Curran,  Brennan,  Madden,  Shanahan,  Brophy, 
Daly,  Reardon,  Quinn,  John  Everet,  Feral,  Woods,  Mulledy,  S.  J.,  Farrelly, 
O’Toole,  Hassan,  Lewis,  Nobriga,  Slevin,  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 

There  were  also  a  large  number  of  Priests  from  the  neighboring  Dioceses ; 
among  the  rest.  Very  Rev.  Father  Moran,  V.  G.,  Newark,  N.  J. ;  Rev.  Messrs. 
Doane,  Newark,  N.  J. ;  Madden,  Madison,  N.  J. ;  McKay,  Orange,  N.  J. ; 
Cauvin,  Hoboken,  N.  .1. ;  McNulty,  Paterson,  N.  J. ;  Very  Rev.  Mr.  Turner, 
V.  G. ;  Rev.  Messrs.  McDonnell,  McKenna,  Cassidy,  Gleeson,  Keegan,  Brady, 
McGorrisk,  Maguire,  Bohan,  Pise,  D.  D.,  Freel,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ;  Phelan 
Astoria,  N.  Y. ;  Farley,  Jamaica,  N.  Y. ;  O’Brien,  New  Haven,  Ct. ;  Hart,  New 
Haven,  Ct.,  Smyth,  Norwalk,  Ct. ;  De  Bruyker,  Williamantic,  Ct. ;  Walsh,  Mer¬ 
iden,  Ct. ;  Kelly,  Norwich,  Ct.;  Lambe,  Providence,  R.  I. ;  Cooney,  Providence, 
R.  I.;  Very  Rev.  J.  J.  Williams,  V.  G.,  Boston,  Mass. ;  Rev.  Messrs.  Linden, 
Boston,  Mass. ;  McPhillips,  Taunton,  Mass. ;  Very  Rev.  M.  O’Brien,  V.  G., 
Rochester,  N.  Y’'. ;  Rev.  Messrs.  Mulholland,  Lockport,  N.  Y. ;  McMulliu, 
Suspension  Bridge,  N.  Y. ;  McGowan,  Seneca  Falls,  N.  Y. ;  Magliana, 


26 


SERMON  OE  BISHOP  LOUGHLIN. 


O.  S.  F.,  Alleghiiny,  IST.  Y. ;  Keynolds,  Pittsburg,  Pa. ;  J.  McCloskey,  V.  P., 
Mt.  St.  Mary’s  College,  Emmitsburg,  and  Conway,  P.  P.,  Headford,  Ireland. 

Mass  was  celebrated  by  Arclibisliop  Connolly,  assisted  by  Very  Rev.  Mr. 
Starrs,  V.  G-.,  Administrator  tern,  of  the  Archdiocese;  Rev.  Mr.  Maguire 
of  the  Cathedral  ofBciated  as  Deacon,  and  Rev.  Dr.  McSweeney  as  Sub- 
deacon;  Rev.  F.  McNeirny,  Master  of  Ceremonies,  assisted  by  Rev.  Mr.  Far¬ 
rell.  The  sermon,  preached  by  the  Bishop  of  Brooklyn,  is  given  in  full 
below. 


SERMON  OF  BISHOP  LOUGHLIN. 

Remember  your  Prelates  who  have  spoken  the  Word  of  God  to  you ;  whose  faith 
follow,  considering  the  end  of  their  conversation. — Heb.  xiii.  7.  i 

You  are  assembled  here  to-day,  beloved  brethren,  to  perform  a  work 
■which  your  religion  recommends — that  is,  to  unite  in  oifering  the  Holy 
Sacrifice  and  fervent  prayer  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  our  lamented  Arch¬ 
bishop.  You  have  come,  also,  it  may  be,  to  hear  from  this  place  a  suitable 
exposition  of  his  merits  which  may  be  calculated  to  increase  your  resjiect, 
admiration  and  affection  for  him,  or  to  confirm  in  you  those  sentiments 
which  have  long  since  had  a  place  in  your  hearts.  Already  most  eloquent 
•nmrds  of  eulogy  have  been  addressed  to  you.  Already  you  have  heard  on 
all  sides,  in  public  and  in  private,  the  learned  and  the  unlearned,  the  states¬ 
man,  the  lawyer,  the  orator,  the  poet,  those  who  are  not  members  of  the 
Catholic  Church  as  well  as  those  who  are,  proclaim,  with  one  accord,  their 
respect  for  the  illustrious  departed.  On  the  day  of  his  obsequies  you  saw 
within  this  sacred  edifice,  municipal  and  various  other  representations  and 
delegations,  manifesting  their  grief  for  the  loss  sustained  by  the  whole 
community,  while  sympathetic  thousands  were  without,  unable  to  enter. 
The  grand  solemnity  of  that  day,  and  the  manifestation  of  feeling  which 
the  sad  event  by  which  it  was  marked  called  forth,  will  not  be  soon  for¬ 
gotten.  The  remembrance  of  him  whose  remains  were  then  before  us  wilJ. 
be  ever  cherished  with  respect  and  affection  by  all  of  us.  After  all  this, 
can  any  word  I  might  utter  extend  the  boundaries  of  his  fame,  or  increase 
your  respect  and  affection  for  him  ?  I  apprehend  that  any  effort  on  my 
part  to  accomplish  this  might  be  fruitless,  on  account  of  my  inability,  in 
the  limited  time  allowed  me  for  the  purpose,  and  because,  even  if  I  had 
more  time,  I  could  not  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice,  or  reach  the  point  to 
which  your  expectations  have  been  raised.  Nevertheless,  as  it  is  written 
by  the  Apostle :  “  Remember  your  Prelates  who  have  spoken  the  Word  of 
God  to  you ;  whose  faith  follow,  considering  the  end  of  their  conversation,” 
I  venture  to  speak  of  one  of  whom  it  is  difficult  to  speak,  and  yet  concern¬ 
ing  whom  it  is  difficult  to  be  silent. 

When  we  speak  of  the  Most  Rev.  Dr.  Hughes,  late  Archbishop  of  New  York, 
we  speak  of  a  man  whom  Divine  Providence  gifted  with  very  great,  I  might 
say  with  extraordinary  powers  of  mind,  who  entertained  in  his  heart  sentiments 
which  do  honor  to  humanity,  who  had  a  robust,  vigorous  physical  constitution, 
all  of  which  would  have  secured  for  him  distinguished  pre-eminence  in  any  posi¬ 
tion  or  sphere  in  life.  If  we  speak  of  him  as  a  citizen,  I  may  say  that  if  ever  the 
lamp  of  patriotism  burned  in  the  heart  of  man,  it  did  in  his.  He  loved,  and 
fondly,  too,  the  land  of  his  nativity,  but  the  intolerance  there  experienced 
caused  him  to  leave  it  for  “  another  country  in  which  he  believed  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  citizens  rendered  all  men  equal.”  The  duties  which  devolved 
upon  him,  and  which  he  understood  so  well,  in  this  land  of  his  adoption,  he 
discharged  with  unswerving  fidelity.  To  use  his  own  language,  “  His  feelings, 
his  habits,  his  thoughts,  had  been  so  much  identified  with  all  that  is  American, 


month’s  mind  ceremonies. 


27 


that  he  had  almost  forgotten  he  was  a  foreigner.”  So  long  alnaost  as  the  lamp 
of  life  itself  continued  to  burn,  so  did  that  also  of  the  love  of  his  country,  and 
for  it  he  was  willing  to  make  every  sacrifice  compatible  with  his  high  and  holy 
vocation.  He  w'as  entitled  to  our  respect  and  admiration  as  a  man  and  as  a 
citizen,  and  we  are  called  upon  to  revere  his  memory  now  that  he  is  no  more. 
Hut  it  is  in  the  sacred  and  exalted  character  of  priest  and  prelate,  of  anointed 
of  the  Lord,  of  sentinel  on  the  watchtower  of  Israel,  of  a  chief  of  the  hosts 
of  the  Lord,  of  shepherd  in  the  fold  of  Christ,  that  we  consider  and  commemo¬ 
rate  him  more  especially.  It  was  after  his  ordination  that  “his  public  life 
commenced.  Not  much  time  had  elapsed  after  that  event  before  he  felt  him¬ 
self  called  upon  to  repel  the  unjust  assaults  which  bigotry  made  upon  his  religion, 
and  which  were  calculated  to  bring  odium  on  it  and  its  professoi’s.  Conscious 
of  the  possession  of  the  powers  with  which  he  had  been  gifted,  and  at  the  same 
time  of  the  truth  and  holiness  of  the  cause  he  undertook  to  defend,  he  advanced 
as  a  giant,  and  with  his  w'onderful  intellectual  ability  he  detected  and  exposed 
before  the  light  of  revelation  and  reason  the  errors  and  the  bad  logic  of  his 
opponents,  and  having  scattered  the  mists  of  ignorance  and  prejudice,  the  truth 
shone  forth  in  all  its  majesty  and  splendor,  and  the  Catholic  public  gloried  in 
him  as  their  great  champion.  As  a  priest  he  acquired  great  distinction,  which, 
as  it  w'as  acquired  in  the  defence  of  his  religion,  redounded  also  to  the  honor 
of  that  religion  and  of  the  Catholic  name. 

In  the  course  of  a  few  years  he  was  called  upon  to  assume  greater  re¬ 
sponsibilities.  A  heavier  burden  was  to  be  borne  by  him.  He  did  not 
seek  those  responsibilities,  nor  did  he  ask  to  have  that  burden  placed  upon 
his  shoulders.  Yet  when  he  was  satisfied  that  it  was  the  will  of  his  Divine 
Master  that  he  should  bear  it,  he  bowed  in  submission — he  did  not  refuse 
the  labor.  Confiding  in  Him  whose  name  is  Almighty,  from  the  eminence 
to  which  he  had  been  raised,  at  the  proper  time,  he  surveyed  the  fold  for 
which  he  became  responsible,  made  himself  acquainted  with  its  condition, 
to  give  direction,  apply  the  corrective,  or  supply  the  want,  according  to 
the  circumstances.  He  entered  on  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  Epis¬ 
copate  Avith  astonishing  ability  and  vigor.  With  eye  fixed  on  the  great 
palladium  of  civil  and  religious  liberty — on  the  great  principle  of  the 
American  government,  he  asserts  for  the  young  and  for  the  old  of  his  fiock 
the  rights  of  conscience.  Again,  you  find  him  engaged  in  removing  Avith 
masterly  dexterity  the  difficulties  that  obstructed  the  free  observance  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  At  another  time  you  see  him  contemplating 
the  threatening  storm  of  human  passion,  and  soon,  as  if  it  awaited  his 
order,  it  is  hushed  into  inoffensive  stillness.  Should  his  adversary  present 
himself  behind  a  mask,  he  tears  it  ofl’,  and  with  a  rod  dipped  in  a  mix¬ 
ture  of  logic,  ridicule  and  sarcasm,  he  sends  him  back  in  confusion  to  the 
obscurity  from  which  he  had  emerged. 

Besides  the  great  tact  and  iirudence  for  Avhich  he  Avas  remarkable,  he 
Avas  most  courageous — never  daunted,  never  dismayed — stranger  to  fear. 
He  was  sometimes  apparently  severe,  yet  always  kind,  benevolent,  charita¬ 
ble.  In  all  his  labors,  and  trials,  and  contests,  he  found  consolation  in  the 
truth  and  holiness  of  his  religion,  in  the  rectitude  of  his  conduct  ;  “  in  all 
my  public  life  in  Ncav  York,”  he  writes,  “I  have  done  no  action,  uttered 
no  sentiment  unworthy  of  a  Christian  Bishop  and  an  American  citizen 
and  also  in  the  reciprocation  of  fidelity  on  the  i)art  of  his  devoted  fiock,  so 
that  he  might  declare,  as  he  did  on  the  occasion  of  the  laying  of  the  corner 
stone  of  the  new  Cathedral,  to  the  assembled  thousands,  “  You  have  never 
failed  me,”  reminding  us  of  Avhat  the  Apostle  Avrote  to  the  Corinthians : 
“  We  are  your  glory,  as  you  also  are  ours.”  What  shall  1  say  of  the  emo¬ 
tions  of  pleasure  experienced  by  the  members  of  this  congregation  as  he 
Avas  seen  proceeding  from  the  sacristy  or  episcopal  throne  towards  this 


28 


SERMON  OF  BISHOP  LOUGHLIN. 


place  ?  We  know  how  delighted  all  were  to  hear  the  sound  of  that  voice, 
now,  alas !  hushed  to  stillness,  to  see  that  penetrating  eye,  now  closed  and 
motionless,  and  that  gesture,  which  seemed  to  accord  so  naturally  in  vigor 
and  force  with  the  language  employed  in  elucidating  doctrine  or  enforcing 
the  observance  of  moral  precept.  But  why  should  I  continue  to  repeat 
what  you  have  so  often  heard,  or  endeavor  to  bring  before  your  view  what 
you  have  so  often  seen  ?  Is  it  only  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  anew  your 
respect  and  your  affection  for  him  ?  While  I  would  say  it  is  not  unlawful, 
but  rather  commendable,  to  entertain  these  sentiments,  should  we  not  also 
— yea,  and  above  all— give  glory  to  Him  who  was  pleased  to  enrich  him  so 
munificiently  ?  Who  bestowed  on  him  the  gift  of  faith  ?  Who  gave  him 
fortitude  and  constancy  in  defence  of  that  faith  ?  Who  gave  him  i)rudence 
and  other  endowments  for  which  he  was  so  distinguished  ?  To  the  Giver 
of  every  good  and  perfect  gift,  to  the  Father  of  Lights,  to  the  Author  and 
Finisher  of  our  faith,  to  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom  and  Fortitude,  be  honor 
and  glory,  benediction  and  praise,  for  all  the  graces  and  blessings  be¬ 
stowed  upon  him,  and,  through  his  ministry,  upon  us.  Thus,  beloved 
brethren,  does  the  remembrance  of  the  great  Prelate  excite  to  praise  and 
glorify  God,  nor  should  it  be  without  its  salutary  influence  on  our  lives. 
This  was  the  thought  of  the  Apostle  when  he  admonished  the  Hebrews  to 
follow  the  faith  of  their  Prelates. 

That  God  has  made  a  revelation  to  man,  we  doubt  not.  It  is  also  certain 
that  it  was  his  will  that  He  should  be  glorified  by  man’s  knowledge  and  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  it.  Man  should  then  have  a  knowledge  of  it,  should  accept  it,  and 
be  guided  by  it.  Has  God  made  any  arrangement  for  this  purpose  ?  Most 
certainly.  It  is  made  known  to  us  by  the  Evangelist  as  a  fact  which  existed. 
Like  all  the  stupendous  works  of  the  Almighty,  it  seems  very  simple.  The 
Son  of  God  chose  Apostles,  and  to  them  He  gave  the  words  which  He  had 
received  from  his  Father,  and  He  commissioned  them  to  preach  them  to  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  pledging  his  word  to  them  that  He  would  be  with  them 
till  the  end  of  the  world ;  declaring  to  them,  moreover,  that  whoever  heard  them 
heard  Him !  The  work  was  to  be  continued,  and  the  order  in  which  it  was  to 
be  ca.rried  on  was  arranged  by  infinite  wisdom.  It  was  by  a  living,  teaching 
ministry.  So  the  Apostles  understood  it.  Wo  read  that  St.  Paul  directed 
Timothy  to  commend  to  faithful  men  who  shall  be  fit  to-  teach  others  also  the 
things  which  he  had  heard  from  him.  He  left  Titus  at  Crete  for  the  express 
purpose  of  ordaining  others,  that  thus  the  ministry  might  be  perpetuated.  lie 
tells  the  Hebrews  to  obey  their  prelates  and  to  be  subject  to  them,  for  they 
watch  as  being  to  render  an  account  of  their  souls,  and  again,  to  follow  their 
faith.  The  doctrines  of  faith  which  they  believed  and  taught  were  believed 
and  taught  by  the  prelates  of  the  Church  everywhere,  in  every  nation.  'J'hus, 
in  our  day,  we  may  repeat  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  “  Remember  your  Pre¬ 
lates  who  have  spoken  the  Word  of  God  to  you,  whose  faith  follow.”  It  is  the 
faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

This  is  the  faith  he  held  and  preached.  Follow  that  faith  and  you  will 
be  good  members  of  society,  good  citizens,  good  Christians.  To  it  you 
must  apply  for  a  correct  knowledge  of  all  your  duties.  By  means  of  it  you 
can  see  things  as  God  wills  you  should  see  them  here  below,  and  viewing 
the  world  and  all  that  is  in  it  by  the  aid  of  its  light,  you  will  see  its  vanity ; 
you  will  learn  that  true  happiness  is  not  found  apart  Ironi  God ;  you  learn 
the  value  of  an  immortal  soul.  The  great  truths  of  Faith  he  preached  to 
you  with  great  force  and  dignity,  yet  with  great  simplicity,  for  to  the 
learned  and  to  the  unlearned,  to  the  wise  and  to  the  unwise,  he  was  a 
debtor.  He  never  forgot  that  he  was  a  bishop,  and  that  he  should  take 
heed  to  himself  and  to  the  whole  flock  over  which  he  had  been  placed. 
Great  were  his  gifts,  great  his  dignity,  great  his  responsibility.  He  is  ad- 


ON  CATHOLIC  EMANCIPATION. 


29 


monislied  that  the  time  when  he  shall  have  to  render  an  account  of  his 
ftewardship  is  at  hand,  and  that  he  should  prepare  for  it.  He  received  the 
Liist  Sacraments.  Though  it  was,  and  ever  will  be,  a  great  consolation  to 
me  and  to  you  to  know  that  he  had  the  full  and  unimpared  use  of  his  senses 
and  faculties  at  the  time,  it  was  difficult  to  look  at  that  great  man,  that 
champion,  that  hero  preparing  to  leave  the  scene  of  his  labors,  to  leave  those 
who  were  devoted  to  him.  After  he  had  received  the  Holy  Viaticum  and 
the  Sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction  he  did  not  fail  to  express,  in  his  own 
peculiar,  emphatic  manner,  the  happiness  he  experienced.  Soon  after  my 
consecration  I  had  occasion  to  go  to  his  room.  Having  attended  to  the 
business  for  which  I  went,  and  about  to  leave,  he  looked  at  me  and  said  : 
“  Never  forget  that  you  are  a  Bishop.” 

Now,  in  conclusion,  I  transmit  to  you,  beloved  brethren,  the  affectionate 
admonition  ;  never  forget  that  you  are  Catholics.  Great  is  the  dignity  of 
the  Archbishop,  of  the  Bishop,  of  the  Priest,  of  the  Catholic,  and  great  the 
responsibility.  One  of  the  great  thoughts  of  his  great  mind,  the  clesire  of 
his  heart,  was  that  his  children  in  the  Faith  should  not  be  socially  or 
civilly  inferior  to  their  fellow-citizens.  He  knew  to  what  dignity  their 
Faith  raised  them.  He  knew  they  had  a  correct  understanding  of  their 
moral  obligations,  and  the  duty  of  defending  their  civil  and  their  social 
rights  he  never  lost  sight  of.  Ilemember  your  Prelate  who  has  spoken  to 
you  the  Word  of  God.  Follow  the  great  principles  of  his  and  your  Faith. 
Remember  him  in  your  prayers,  so  that,  so  for  as  may  depend  on  you,  you 
may  be  instrumental  in  hastening,  if  it  has  not  already  taken  place,  his  ad¬ 
mission  into  the  joy  of  his  Lord.  Take  heed  to  yourselves.  Forget  not 
your  dignity,  so  that  when  your  day  come,  or  rather,  if  you  will,  when  the 
night  cometh  when  you  can  no  longer  labor,  you  may  pass  from  this  world 
of  darkness  to  the  enjoyment  of  Him  who  dwelleth  in  the  midst  of  light 
inaccessible. 

After  the  Sermon  was  concluded,  the  last  solemn  rites  were  performed  by 
Archbishop  Connolly,  attended  by  Deacon  and  Sub-Deacon.  Thus  ended 
the  last  public  ceremony  over  the  remains  of  a  great  and  good  man.  Ee- 
quiescat  in  pace. 


BISHOP  HUGHES’  GREAT  SEPvMON 

ON  THE  EMANCIPATION  OF  IRISH  CATHOLICS. 

F reached  in  the  Church  of  Augustine,  Philadelphia,  May  31si^,  1829. 


[This  splendid  sermon  was  delivered  by  the  late  Archbishop  Hughes  in  the  Church 
of  St.  Augustine,  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  Slst  of  May,  1829,  at  a  solemn  religious 
thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God  for  the  emancipation  of  the  Catholics  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  just  achieved  through  the  efforts  of  Daniel  O’Connell.  The  sermon  was 
dedicated  to  him  by  the  author,  who  was  then  only  pastor  of  St.  Joseph’s  Church.] 


LordThouhast  blessed  Thy  land  :  Thou  hast  turned  away  the  captivity  of  Jacob  .  .  . 
.  .  .  .  Mercy  anti  truth  have  met  each  other:  Justice  and  peace  have  kissed. 

Truth  is  sprung  out  of  the  earth  :  and  Justice  hath  looked  down  from  heaven. 

Psalm  Ixxxiv, 

It  is  the  privilege  of  man,  my  brethren,  to  sympathize  in  sorrows  that 
.are  not  liis  own,  as  well  as  to  rejoice  in  the  blessings  which  make  others 
happy,  although  they  leave  his  own  individual  condition  unchanged  and  nn- 


30 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


affected.  This  peculiarly  amiable  feature  has  been  impressed  on  the  human 
character  by  the  plasmatic  hand  of  Almighty  God,  in  order,  no  doubt,  to 
remiud  his  children,  by  the  community  of  their  affections,  that,  however 
separated  by  distance  of  time  or  place,  they  are  brethren  notwithstanding, 
deriving  their  origin  from  a  common  Father,  by  whom  they  were  created  for 
a  common  end.  Otherwise,  the  sympathetic  susceptibilities  of  the  human 
breast  ai’e  inexplicable.  There  is  no  other  fountain  to  which  we  can  trace 
the  current  of  those  tears  that  bedew  the  pages  of  romance,  when  they  pic¬ 
ture  scenes  of  distress  which  might  have  existed,  but  which  in  fact  never  did 
exists  save  in  the  author’s  imagination  and  the  reader’s  sensibility.  If,  then, 
by  the  spontaneous  dictate  of  generous  nature,  we  can  enter  thus  largely 
into  the  fortunes  and  feelings  of  one  individual,  how  could  we  stand  unmoved 
when  we  behold  entire  millions  of  our  species  and  our  brethren,  after  whole 
ages  of  sorrow,  rejoicing  at  length  in  the  commencement  of  a  new-born  des¬ 
tiny,  and  we  trust  a  happier  era.  It  was  but  yesterday  you  saw  the  hope 
of  those  millions  suspended  from  the  balance  of  apparent  chance,  and  with 
what  anxious  solicitude  did  you  watch  every  tremulous  motion  of  the  beam, 
M’hilst  prejudice,  folly  and  oppression  were  in  one  scale,  opposed  to  reason, 
truth  and  justice  in  the  other,  and  it  yet  remained  doubtful  wliich  side  would 
ultimately  preponderate!  Tlie  issue  has  been  auspicious:  it  has  been  made 
known  to  you  and  to  the  world ;  and  other  millions,  perfectly  disinterested, 
except  by  the  sympathies  of  universal  nature,  are  now  rejoicing  in  the  event. 
Such  is  the  benevoleirce  of  philanthropy. 

But  this  feeling,  for  the  very  reason  that  it  is  capable  of  being  extended, 
so  as  to  embrace  all  mankind  of  every  nation  and  of  every  clime,  becomes 
stronger  and  warmer,  like  the  concentrated  rays  of  the  sun,  when  circum¬ 
stances  coniine  it  Avithin  a  narrower  sphere.  What  Avas  philanthropy,  when 
it  knew  no  limits,  requires  to  be  expressed  by  some  more  ardent  epithet, 
wdien  it  is  circumscribed  by  the  boundaries  of  our  native  country ;  and  lan¬ 
guage  presents  a  word  of  magic  influence — patriotism.  Here,  tlien,  is  an¬ 
other  principle  of  human  nature  that  operates  on  so  many  bosoms  in  the  vast 
assembly  that  surround  me.  There  is  in  the  heart  of  every  man  that  Avhich 
interestshim — the  land  of  his  nativity ;  and  until  that  heart  cease  to  beat,  no 
distance  either  of  time  or  of  jflace  will  be  able  to  extinguish  the  sensation. 
He  may  banish  himself  from  his  country — -his  judgment  may  give  a  decided 
jireference  to  any  other — his  reason  may  be  at  variance  with  his  feelings — 
absence  and  age,  and  reason  and  philosophy  may  all  conspire  against  the 
rebel  affection  of  his  bosom,  but  they  will  not  be  able  to  subdue  it.  The 
home  of  Ids  fathers  and  of  his  childhood,  the  scenes  and  companions  of  his 
youth,  even  the  first  landscape,  hoAvever  rude,  wdth  which  his  eyes  became 
familiar — all  these  things  break  in  upon  his  recollection  in  after  years,  with 
that  luxury  of  mingled  feelings  which  I  cannot  describe,  because  they  Avill 
not  submit  to  be  analyzed,  but  which  every  exile  from  his  country  has  expe¬ 
rienced,  and  can  therefore  appreciate.  These  reminiscences  are  stimetimes 
sad,  and  yet  they  charm  ;  they  are  melancholy,  and  still  they  enchant :  but 
whatever  tliey  are,  they  maintain  tjieir  dominion  over  the  human  breast; 
and  I  know  one  heart  that  Avould  not  like  to  be  insensible  to  their  influence, 
eAmn  if  the  thing  Avere  possible. 

Still,  my  brethren,  they  are  common  to  the  Jcav,  the  Christian,  and  the 
idolater:  to  the  baritarian  as  AAmll  as  to  the  Greek.  They  belong  to  the 
order  of  mere  human  virtues,  until  they  arc  touched  and  hallowed,  like  the 
prophet’s  lips,  by  some  living  embers  from  the  altar  of  religion.  Thus, 
Avhilst  AA'e  indulge  in  feelings  of  philanthropy  and  of  patriotism,  as  men,  Ave 
must  not  be  unmindful  that  as  believers  Ave  should  refer  to  God  the  glory 
of  the  achicAmment  in  which  we  all  rejoice.  It  is  for  this  especial  reason 
that  we  give  expression  to  our  gratitude  in  the  act  of  solemn  and  religious 


ON  CATHOLIC  EMANCIPATION. 


31 


thanksgiving,  and  thus  proclaim  our  belief,  that  the  affairs  cf  this  world  are 
not  abandoned  to  capricious  chance — that  they  are  not  decided  Ijy  sullen 
destiny — but  that  God,  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe,  without  seem¬ 
ing  to  dispute  the  wisdom  of  earthly  calculations,  disposes  them  neverthe¬ 
less  in  measure  and  in  weight  according  to  a  superior  judgment,  too  sub¬ 
lime  for  the  scrutiny  of  man,  too  infinite  for  the  comprehension  of  created 
intellect. 

So  that,  on  whatsoever  side  we  consider  the  subject,  we  find  the  occasion 
to  be  in  accordance  with  the  best  and  most  universal  feelings  of  our  nature, 
and  with  the  soundest  dictates  of  reason  and  of  religion.  It  is  an  occasion 
of  legitimate  rejoicing  in  every  sense :  when  the  apple  of  discord,  which  has 
been  the  cause  of  so  much  oppression,  injustice,  and  bloodshed  in  unhappy 
Ii’eland,  has  been  at  length  destroyed,  and  the  axe  effectually  applied  to 
the  root  of  the  tree  that  2)roduced  it — when  those  inequalities  in  the  law 
which  divided  the  nation  so  long,  operating  as  an  almost  irresistible  incen¬ 
tive  to  the  worst  passions  of  authority,  are  blotted  out  for  ever — when  we 
may  hope  that  hereafter  heaven  will  be  no  more  outraged  by  the  crimes  of 
the  oppressor;  that  humanity  will  no  longer  be  compelled  to  weep  over 
the  sufferings  of  the  oppressed — when,  in  fine,  the  kindred  virtues  have 
been  permitted  to  meet  again,  and  justice  and  peace  have  actually  kissed, 
in  token  of  eternal  amitJ^ 

Such  are  the  prominent  features  of  the  moral  triumph  which  I  have  this 
day  to  proclaim ;  and  my  only  regret  is,  that  it  has  not  found  a  herald  more 
competent  to  do  it  justice.  When  I  reflect,  however,  that  the  intense  feel¬ 
ings  which  surround  me  are  interested  chiefly  in  the  matter  of  my  subject, 
I  have  reason  to  hope  they  will  extend  a  generous  portion  of  indulgence  to 
the  manner  in  which  it  may  be  presented.  This  is  the  cheering  considera¬ 
tion  that  sustains  me,  when  I  would  otheinvise  shrink  from  the  arduous  un¬ 
dertaking. 

The  histories  of  nations,  my  brethren,  like  those  of  individuals,  checiuered 
as  both  are  by  the  vicissitudes  to  which  human  things  are  liable,  become  a 
book  of  moral  and  religious  instruction  when  studied  by  the  light  of  Chris¬ 
tian  faith: — whilst  at  the  same  time  they  furnish  that  experience  from 
which  philosophy  may  extract  lessons  of  practical  wisdom;  and  statesmen 
derive  political  knowledge,  which  they  can  employ  for  the  promotion  or 
the  destruction  of  social  happiness.  And  there  is  not  in  the  world,  per¬ 
haps,  a  country  whose  history  may  be  studied  under  a  greater  variety  of 
aspects,  than  that  Avhich  is  this  day  the  subject  of  our  consideration.  The 
native  historians  of  Ireland  trace  the  lineal  descent  of  her  people  to  a  very 
distinguished  origin,  and  to  an  extremely  remote  period  of  antiquity. 
They  claim  also,  even  for  their  pagan  ancestors,  a  degree  of  superiority  in 
.  national  policy,  and  in  mental  improvement,  which  distinguished  them  in 
those  ages,  as  much  as  the  Mexicans  were  distinguished  from  the  other  na¬ 
tions  of  this  hemisphere  at  the  epoch  of  the  Spanish  invasion.  Other 
writers,  however,  have  drawn  their  pen  across  the  labor  of  the  Irish  anti¬ 
quarians,  and  without  taking  the  pains  to  investigate,  have  pronounced  the 
whole  narrative  to  be  fabulous.  If  national  credulity  has  arrogated  too 
much,  it  is  equally  certain  that  those,  who  with  national  antipathies  have 
undertaken  to  correct  the  mistake,  have  been  uncandid  in  refusing  to  con¬ 
cede  what  ought  not  to  be  withheld.  For,  without  losing  ourselves  in  the 
mists  of  antiquity,  but  beginning  at  the  period  when  history  cast  away  the 
drapery  of  fiction,  with  which,  it  is  said,  that  poetry  had  invested  her,  we 
are  met  by  tangible  and  uncontroverted  facts,  which  prove  that  however 
the  pretensions  to  superiority  may  have  been  over-rated,  they  are  not  alto¬ 
gether  without  foundation. 

It  was  in  the  fifth  century  of  our  era,  when  Christianity,  having  already 


3^ 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


scattered  her  divine  illuminations  extensively  over  the  globe,  landed  at 
length  on  the  shores  of  Ireland,  and  planted  the  cross — at  once  the  en  blem 
of  her  doctrine  and  the  evidence  of  her  conquest  —  where  the  Roman  eagle 
never  floated.  In  what  situation  did  she  And  the  country  ?  Governed  by 
a  monarch  who  enjoyed  the  sceptre  by  the  right  of  election,  whose  piivileges 
were  limited  and  deflned ;  vflth  representative  parliamentary  assemblies, 
for  the  enactment  of  vflse  laws  ;  with  three  distinct  classes  in  the  state,  for 
the  purposes  of  subordination ;  with  the  use  of  letters  and  literary  estab¬ 
lishments  ;  with  institutions  separate  and  apart  for  the  study  of  music, 
heraldry,  ifliilosophy,  and  medicine !  This  is  not  the  government  of  a  rude 
and  savage  people — these  are  not  the  institutions  of  barbarism,  nor  the  oc¬ 
cupation  of  barbarians.  Greece  would  not  have  been  ashamed  of  the’*n  at 
any  time ;  and  in  that  age  history  sought  for  them  in  vain  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  Roman  empire,  except  in  Ireland. 

But,  again,  contrast  the  admission  which  Christianity  obtained  in  Ireland, 
with  the  cruel  opposition  which  it  had  to  encounter  in  other  countries. 
When  we  examine  the  means  and  manner  of  the  world’s  conversion,  we  find 
that  the  first  heralds  of  eternal  life  were  generally  immolated  in  almost 
every  country  to  the  exiiiriug  deities  of  the  jrlace ;  and  that  the  tree  of  di¬ 
vine  faith  was  not  permitted  to  take  root  in  the  soil,  until  after  it  had  been 
profusely  watered  with  the  blood  of  those  who  wmre  commissioned  to  plant 
it.  In  Ireland,  however,  this  was  not  the  case.  The  great  apostle  of  that 
nation  was  permitted  to  labor  undisturbed  in  his  holy  vocation  for  thirty 
successive  years,  exhil)iting  the  meek  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  power 
of  its  own  celestial  evidence — and  because  the  mind  of  Ireland  was  im¬ 
proved  and  competent  to  judge  it  by  its  evidence,  only  thirty  years  was 
necessary  to  establish  that  doctrine,  which  a  proscription  and  a  persecution 
of  nearly  three  hundred  have  not  been  able  to  root  out.  Greece  and  Italy 
were  enlightened,  and  yet  they  endeavored  to  extinguish  the  infant  religion 
of  Christ  in  its  cradle ;  but  their  hearts  were  depraved,  and  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  assign  the  universal  motive  of  men,  who  “  love  clarkness  rather  than 
light.”  The  reasoning  of  Ireland,  compared  with  theirs,  was  the  reasoning 
of  Gamaliel  in  the  council  of  the  Pharisees.  But  in  all  the  other  countries 
civilization  followed  with  tardy  pace  in  the  footsteps  of  Christianity ;  in 
Ireland  it  had  gone  before.  Elsewhere,  the  seed  of  the  divine  word  was 
sown  on  the  rocks  of  barbarism,  or  scattered  amid  the  brambles  of  blind, 
bigoted,  and  cruel  superstition — here,  the  rock  had  been  broken,  the  bram¬ 
bles  haci  been  cleared  away,  and  Christianity  found  a  soil  prepared ;  for  I 
defy  historical  scepticism,  with  all  its  easy  ingenuity,  to  account  for  its  un¬ 
obstructed  promulgation,  and  rapid  increase  on  any  other  human  hypo¬ 
thesis. 

But,  together  with  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  Ireland  received  the 
knowledge  of  Roman  letters,  and  of  classic  literature  ;  and  during  the  sub¬ 
sequent  ages,  when  the  torch  of  science  was  on  the  verge  of  extinction 
throughout  the  rest  of  Europe,  it  blazed  forth  in  Ireland  Avith  a  lustre  which 
attracted  at  once  the  notice  and  the  admiration  of  the  world.  And  here 
permit  me  to  instance  how  hereditary  and  indeliable  are  the  leading  traits 
of  national  character.  One  of  the  laws  previous  to  its  conversion,  proves 
that  hospitality  was  universally  exercised  in  that  country  from  time  im¬ 
memorial.  This  law  did  not  enjoin  merely  that  the  stranger  should  be 
taken  in  when  perchance  he  knocked  at  the  door,  nor  that  having  entered 
the  domestic  circles,  his  rights  should  be  regarded  as  sacred.  In  other 
countries  this  would  have  been  much  ;  in  Ireland  it  was  unnecessary,  and 
would  have  been  nothing.  It  was  enjoined  by  imblic  authority,  and  under 
the  forfeiture  of  iienalty,  that  no  family  should  remove  from  its  established 
residence  without  having  given  previous  notice  of  its  intention,  lest  t!jie 


CATHOLIC  EMAXCIPATION'. 


33 


wearied  traveler,  unapprised  of  the  change,  should  call  at  the  deserted 
mansion,  when  overtaken  by  the  darkness  of  the  night,  and  there  would  be 
no  one  to  receive  him  to  the  rites  of  hospitality. 

But  it  was  during  the  jieriod  subsequent  to  the  introduction  of  Christi¬ 
anity,  when  the  charities  of  heaven’s  religion  were  engrafted  on  the  stock 
of  native  generosity,  that  Ireland  established  her  prescriptive  and  undisput¬ 
ed  claim  to  that  national  character,  which,  through  all  the  variety  of  her 
fortunes,  she  has  not  to  this  day  forfeited.  Her  seminaries  of  learning, 
with  which  she  abounded,  were  crowded  with  the  votaries  of  knowledge 
from  every  other  country,  and  we  are  authorized  on  the  testimony  of  a  co- 
temiDoraneous  and  a  foreign  writer,  the  venerable  Bede,  to  state  that  those 
strangers  were  received,  supported,  and  educated  in  the  Irish  seminaries, 
without  remuneration  or  reward.  Abroad,  in  Germany,  Italy,  and  France, 
she  was  regarded  through  the  medium  of  her  jiious  ecclesiastics,  "who  went 
forth  as  missionaries,  imparting  to  others  the  blessings  of  religion  which 
heaven  had  bestowed  upon  themselves  ;  and  judging  of  the  country  which 
produced  them,  by  their  numbers,  their  talent,  their  zeal,  bui,  above  all, 
by  the  unblemished  sanctity  of  their  lives,  Ireland  was  designated  in  the 
writings  of  the  time,  as  the  “  Island  of  Saints.”  This  is  an  appellation  of 
which  she  has  the  more  reason  to  be  proud,  because  it  was  not  engraved 
on  her  escutcheon  by  the  hand  of  national  vanity,  but  was  the  unsolicited 
offering,  the  spontaneous  tribute  of  foreign  admiration.  This  is  a  title  to 
which,  even  in  the  depth  of  her  political  degradation,  Ireland  looked  back 
with  a  fond,  but  saddened  recollection,  because  like  the  statues  of  illus¬ 
trious  ancestors  in  pagan  Rome,  it  reminded  her  of  the  eminence  from 
which  she  had  fallen,  and  the  degeneracy  of  the  children  compared  with 
the  sanctity  of  their  fathers.  But  this  is  not  the  time  to  enlarge  on  that 
topic. 

Neither  was  it  by  their  virtues  alone  that  the  preachers  of  Christianity 
fi’om  Ireland,  during  those  ages,  were  distinguished  in  other  lands.  One 
of  the  writers  of  her  history,  Plowden,  himself  an  Englishman,  tells  us  that 
Alfred  the  Great,  and  England’s  greatest  king,  was  educated  in  Ireland; 
from  whence,  also,  he  brought  iirofessors  for  that  Oxford  college  which  the 
other  day  voted  against  the  religion  of  its  founder,  and  the  country  of  its 
first  professors.  The  biographer  and  historian  of  Charlemagne  says,  that 
the  colleges  of  Paris  and  Pavia  were  founded  by  Irish  ecclesiastics.  The 
yoimger  Scaliger  informs  us  that  in  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  and  for  two 
hundred  years  after,  ‘■'■fere  oinnes  doetif  almost  all  the  learned  men  of 
France  were  from  Ireland.  And  Doctor  Johnson  observes,  Ireland  is  known 
to  have  been  once  the  seat  of  piety  and  of  learning,  and  concludes  by  the 
expression  of  his  regret  that  more  is  not  ascertained  of  the  revolutions  of 
a  peoifie  “  so  ancient,”  says  he,  “  and  once  so  illustrious.”  Such  is  the  hon¬ 
orable  testimony  borne  to  the  character  of  that  country  before  it  became 
the  iJrey  of  ruthless  invasion.  But  why  should  I  have  selected  Johnson 
and  Scaliger  from  a  host  of  others  ?  Because,  my  brethren,  their  evidence 
bids  defiance  to  the  common  objections  made  by  historical  skepticism,  viz  : 
ignorance,  or  partiality  to  the  religion  or  the  soil.  Both  were  pre-eminent 
in  the  science  of  belles-lettres ;  both  were  giants  m  literature ;  both  were 
foreigners ;  both  were  Protestants. 

Such  was  the  march  of  Ireland  on  the  literary  theatre  of  the  world  be¬ 
fore  she  was  inundated  by  the  waters  of  oppression,  from  which  she  is  now 
emerging.  She  went  forth  scattering  the  treasures  of  her  own  enlightened 
intellect,  pouring  her  own  oil  into  the  famished  lamp  of  science  wherever 
she  passed ;  or  lighting  it  up  where  it  had  never  blazed  before.  Such  was 
her  zeal  to  jilant  with  generous  hand  in  the  bosom  of  other  nations,  those 
seeds  of  religion  and  of  viitue  which  had  produced  the  harvest  of  holiness 
3 


34 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


in  her  own.  To  the  man  who  is  skilled  in  the  philosophy  of  believing  only 
what  he  sees  or  comi>rehends,  the  idea  may  appear  superstitious ;  but  to  me 
it  seems  in  accordance  with  the  certain  though  mysterious  economy  of  Di¬ 
vine  Providence,  that  during  this  illustrious  period  of  her  pre-eminence  in 
science  and  in  piety,  Ireland  was  guided  by  some  spirit  of  prophetic  benev¬ 
olence  from  above,  that  gave  her  a  glimpse  of  her  own  future  situation, 
and  breathed  in  her  soul  the  counsel  of  eternal  wisdom,  to  labor  while  the 
day  is,  for  the  night  coineth  when  no  man  can  work.  When  we  behold  her 
standing  on  her  own  hospitable  beach,  to  receive  the  stranger  youth  of  eve¬ 
ry  land  with  a  mother’s  affection,  does  it  not  appear  that  with  a  mother’s 
prospective  solicitude,  her  vision  pierced  the  gloom  of  futurity,  and  rested 
on  that  melancholy  period  when  her  own  persecuted  sons  should  be  obliged 
to  visit  other  climes  in  pursuit  of  science,  because  at  home  they  would  not 
be  allowed  to  drink  the  waters  of  knowledge,  except  at  fountains  which 
they  deemed  polluted  ?  As  if  she  foresaw  the  time  when  her  own  expatri¬ 
ated  children  would  be  borne  afar,  and  afer  on  the  surge  of  every  ocean, 
and  cast  on  every  distant  shore,  there,  like  uprooted  plants,  to  perish,  un¬ 
less  fostered  by  the  hand  of  foreign  kindness.  There  was  a  time  when  the 
other  nations  of  Europe  were  indebted  to  Ireland ;  but  her  fortunes  chang¬ 
ed  ;  the  means  of  conferring  benefits  were  taken  from  her,  and  in  her  turn 
slie  became  their  debtor.  To  the  seminaries  of  Germany  and  Italy,  and  still 
more  to  those  of  France,  she  owes,  under  the  same  providence  of  Almighty 
God,  the  unbroken  succession  of  her  priesthood  during  the  persecution  of 
her  religion ;  and  now  that  it  has  ceased,  she  acknowledges  the  obligation 
in  the  fullness  of  her  own  gratitude,  as  if  she  had  deserved  nothing  at  their 
hands. 

About  the  close  of  the  seventh  century,  Egfred,  King  of  Northumberland, 
made  a  transitory  incursion  into  the  country,  and  this  was  the  first  foreign 
enemy,  coming  in  the  attitude  of  hostility,  that  ever  trod  on  Irish  soil. 
After  his  expulsion,  Ireland  enjoyed  her  usual  tranquillity  until  about  the 
beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  when  the  Danes  and  Norwegians  aimed  at, 
and  partly  succeeded  in  efi'ecting,  what  they  considered  a  permanent  estab¬ 
lishment  in  that  delightful  country.  The  eftbrt,  we  are  told,  cost  them  a 
sti'uggle  of  thirty  years ;  and  we  know  from  the  history  of  other  nations 
which  they  visited  merely  as  a  passing  scourge,  that  their  hatred  of  those 
studies  which  gave  polish  and  refinement  to  social  life,  was  equaled  only 
by  their  hatred  of  Christianity.  In  Ireland  they  had  time  and  opportunity 
to  indulge  the  double  hatred — they  had  abundant  material  whereon  to 
wreak  their  Gothic  vengeance,  by  destroying  monasteries,  in  which  science 
and  religion  dwelt  like  sisters  in  the  same  sanctuary,  and  against  which  the 
Danes  cherished  a  universal  and  hereditary  spite.  They  were  inhabited  by 
monks,  a  class  of  men  who  have  been  so  traduced,  and  calumniated  by  the 
learned  ingratitude  of  modern  times,  that  their  veiy  name  sounds  in  the 
ear  of  popular  credulity,  as  synonymous  with  ignorance  and  indolence. 
They  were  not  ignorant,  my  brethren ;  but  that  ignorance  which  is  charged 
upon  them,  would  be  at  this  day  aurs,  if  they  had  not  been  learned.  One 
portion  of  their  time  was  devoted  to  prayer  and  singing  the  jiraises  of  God ; 
the  residue  was  employed  in  transcribing  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  books  of 
antiquity.  They  were  not  indolent ;  on  the  contrary  we  find  them  in  every 
country,  engaged  •\’vith  patient  industry  in  building  across  the  middle  ages 
that  bridge  which  connects  ancient  with  modern  literature,  and  by  which 
the  wisdom  and  the  folly  of  other  days  and  of  other  generations  have  trav¬ 
eled  down  to  us.  They  were  engaged  in  saving  whatever  of  learning  could 
be  saved  by  hu7nan  exertion  from  the  ravages  of  those  turbid  waters  that 
swept  beneath  its  extensive  span.  The  annals  of  pagan  as  well  as  of  Chris¬ 
tian  Ireland  were  deposited  in  these  monasteries,  which  were  pillaged  and 


ON  CATHOLIC  EMANCIPATION. 


35 


destroyed  by  the  vandalism  of  the  northern  invaders.  Then  did  perish 
those  national  monuments,  the  al)sence  of  which  Doctor  Johnson,  in  the 
name  of  enlightened  posterity,  deplores,  because,  says  he,  being  the  records 
of  an  ancient  and  once  an  illustrious  people,  if  they  had  come  down  to  us, 
they  would  have  thrown  light  on  two  important  but  disputable  sul)jects  ; 
viz :  “  the  origin  of  nations,  and  the  affinity  of  languages.”  They  have  not 
come  down  to  us ;  and  we  can  judge  of  ancient  Ireland,  from  Irish  docu¬ 
ments,  only  as  we  judge  of  a  long  ruined  edifice,  by  the  quality  of  the  scat¬ 
tered  fragments  which  strew  the  place  around.  After  the  destruction  of 
her  monasteries,  however,  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries,  the  sun  of  her 
literai’y  glory  ajipears  to  have  set ;  although  the  reflection  of  his  departed 
splendor,  like  the  mellow  light  of  evening,  lingered  on  her  horizon;  and  dur¬ 
ing  the  darkness — the  night  that  followed — hers  were  some  of  the  bright¬ 
est  stars  in  the  firmament  of  letters. 

The  Danes  were  finally  expelled,  just  time  enough  to  show  that  the  coun¬ 
try  was  still  unconquered,  and  free  from  every  foreign  yoke,  when  the  Eng¬ 
lish  commenced  its  invasion  about  the  year  1171.  Then  it  was  that  Eng¬ 
land’s  second  Henry  established  in  Ireland  a  power  which,  under  all  cir¬ 
cumstances,  would  perhaps  have  been  a  blessing,  if  it  had  been  conducted 
on  the  principles  of  distributive  justice  or  of  common  equity ;  but  which,  as 
it  was,  operated  like  a  canker  worm  at  the  root  of  the  nation’s  happiness, 
blighting  every  virtue  that  adorns  human  nature,  and  giving  occasion  to 
the  exercise  of  every  vice  that  degrades  humanity.  But,  on  the  very  thresh¬ 
old  of  this  topic,  a  question  arises,  and  it  is  asked  by  what  right  did  he 
invade,  and  by  what  title  did  he  claim  the  territory  of  an  unoffending  peo¬ 
ple  ?  Why,  the  ostensible  right  was  a  v/ritten  instrument,  obtained  by 
some  means  or  other,  almost  twenty  years  before,  from  Adrian  IV.,  Bishop 
of  Rome  and  Pontiff  of  the  Universal  Church.  In  virtue  of  this,  Ireland 
was  disposed  of  in  the  form  of  a  donation,  under  certain  stipulated  terms. 
The  invader  knew  very  well  that  the  donation  was  a  mockery ;  but  then  it 
might  serve  a  purpose.  It  was  carefully  concealed  until  the  desired  mo¬ 
ment  arrived ;  then  ambition  grasped  the  sword,  and  artifice  thought  to 
hide  its  lancet  point,  in  the  folds  of  this  flimsy  document;  in  order  that 
while  the  scruples  of  the  nation  should  be  excited,  touching  the  Pope’s 
authority,  its  liberties  might  be  assassinated  quietly,  and  with  as  little  waste 
of  English  blood  as  possible.  The  Irish  people  then,  as  well  as  now,  bowed 
to  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Pope,  as  the  visible  head  of  the  Christian 
Church ;  but  then  as  well  as  now,  they  knew  that  the  act  of  Adrian  did  not 
derive  its  authority  from  Him  “  whose  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.” 
The  document  may  have  surprised  and  divided  the  nation ;  it  may  have 
weakened,  though  it  did  not  paralyze  the  arm  of  resistance ;  but  the  fact  is, 
that  at  all  times  England’s  best  title  was  the  sword.  The  Irish  soon  after 
protested  publicly  against  the  whole  proceedings ;  and  forw'arded  to  the 
Vatican  itself  a  remonstrance,  which  is  written  in  a  tone  of  uncompromising 
complaint,  and  which,  but  for  the  deeply- wounded  spirit  of  those  wdio 
penned  it,  would  be  considered  reprehensible  even  at  this  day ;  such  is  the 
bitter  independence  of  its  language.  This  was  the'  most  unwarrantable 
stretch  of  assumed  prerogative  in  the  annals  of  what  modern  writers  call 
papal  usurpation.  It  was  unnecessary,  it  was  unavailing,  it  was  unjust. 
And  having  said  thus  much,  I  will  be  iiermitted  to  show,  by  a  few  remarks, 
that  this  and  similar  acts  have  become  too  much  the  theme  of  satirical  ani¬ 
madversion  and  unmerited  invective. 

Good  sense,  and  sound  criticism,  and  common  justice  require,  that  be¬ 
fore  we  pronounce  on  the  proceedings  of  former  ages,  we  should  examine 
them  in  connection  with  the  times  in  which  they  occurred  ;  the  cotempo* 
raucous  prejudices,  the  nature  of  the  governments,  the  manners  and  gen- 


36 


ARCnBISUOP  HUGHES 


eral  condition  of  society  ■when  they  happened,  should  all  be  thrown  into 
the  scale  of  judgment ;  and  they  would  guide  us  to  a  just  -verdict  of  cen* 
sure  or  of  approbation.  The  direct  contrary,  however,  is  the  general  prac¬ 
tice  with  writers  otherwise  eminent  and  learned.  They  seize  an  isolated 
fact  in  the  darkness  of  the  dark  ages,  and  di-ag  it  forth  naked,  divested  of 
all  its  concomitant  circumstances,  to  be  judged,  and,  as  a  nratter  of  course, 
to  be  condemned  by  the  superior  light  of  the  present  day. 

If  they  allowed  it,  however,  to  return  naked  as  tliey  found  it,  the  world 
would  not  be,  as  it  is,  the  enlightened  dupe  of  unsuspected  jrrejudice  on 
a  thousand  historical  and  religious  topics.  But  disregarding  tlm  moral 
f)f  the  Holy  Scripture,  they  put  new  cloth  on  old  raiment,  and  dismiss  the 
fact,  whatever  it  may  be,  in  its  chequered  and  consequently  ridiculous  dra¬ 
pery.  Thus,  for  example,  when  we  are  told  that  Popes  interfered  with  the 
government  of  kingdoms,  it  should  not  be  left  untold  that  kings  and  na¬ 
tions  had  first  invoked  that  interference,  and  besought  them  in  the  name 
of  humanity  and  religion,  to  protect  the  claims  of  justice,  to  prevent  civil 
war,  and  the  shedding  of  kindred  blood.  It  should  not  be  left  untold  that 
very  frequently  the  brows  to  whom  it  belonged  were  too  weak  to  sustain 
the  diadem,  against  the  usurpations  of  some  other  aspirant,  who  was 
ready  to  tear  it  away.  Interest,'  in  the  form  of  chivalrous  gratitude,  not 
unfrequently  tendered  a  kingdom  at  the  feet  of  the  Pontiff,  and  found  its 
best  security  in  receiving  it  as  a  fief  of  the  Holy  See,  by  the  common 
tenure  of  the  feudal  system  which  prevailed.  Thus,  the  power  of  the 
Popes  was  as  simple  in  its  origin  as  the  power  by  whic'h  a  priest,  or  other 
clergyman,  settles  a  dispute  between  two  neighbors,  who  appeal  to  Mm 
rather  than  to  the  dagger  or  the  magistrate.  The  influence  which  they 
jjossessed  enabled  them  to  extend  the  shield  of  peaceful  justice  for  the 
protection  of  injured  and  otherwise  defenceless  innocence.  If  they  became 
formidable  to  kings,  it  was  because  kings  laid  the  foundations  on  which 
they  built  the  edifice  of  power.  The  state  of  the  world  is  changed  ;  that 
power  has  been  taken  from  them,  and  transferred  to  others.  If  it  had  not, 
the  Pope  at  this  day  could  effect,  without  bloodshed,  what  English  bayo¬ 
nets  will  be  necessary  to  accomplish  in  the  kingdom  of  Portugal,  1  re¬ 
joice,  for  the  sake  of  religion,  that  it  has  been  removed  from  the  chair  of 
St.  Peter ;  because  he  who  occui)ies  that  chair  is  not  an  angel,  but  a  hu¬ 
man  being,  and  whenever  he  mingles  in  human  affairs  he  is  liable  to 
be  swayed  by  human  motives.  This  was  possibly  the  case  with  Adrian 
IV.;  he  was  an  Englishman,  and,  so  far  as  in  him  lay,  he  bequeathed  Ire¬ 
land,  which  never  was  at  his  disposal,  by  feudal  right  or  otherwise ;  he  be¬ 
queathed  it,  nevertheless,  as  an  appendage  to  his  country’s  greatness.  This 
is  the  fact.  And  yet  there  are  considerations  which  might  shield  him  from 
the  harsh  severity  with  which  even  Catholic  writers  have  visited  his  mem¬ 
ory.  He  is  known  to  have  been  a  man  austere  and  simple  in  his  manners, 
and  unblemished  in  the  sanctity  of  his  life  ;  but  it  was  his  lot  to  govern 
the  Church  at  a  time  when  the  prejudices  of  temporal  power,  alluded  to 
above,  were  already  established  by  prescription.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
motives  which  prompted  him  to  the  act  were  evidently  good.  "We  can  see 
by  the  very  tenor  of  the  document,  that  he  was  led  to  suppose  the  good  of 
religion  and  the  promotion  of  piety  were  the  only  objects  for  which  Henry 
the  Second  desired  the  sovereignty  of  Ireland.  For,  my  brethren,  unre¬ 
strained  ambition,  whether  it  operates  on  the  bosoms  of  kings  or  of  other 
men,  does  not  hesitate  to  put  on  the  appearance  of  sanctity,  to  make  use  of 
religion,  aye,  and  of  religion’s  God,  as  stepping-stones  beneath  its  feet,  if 
it  cannot  otherwise  ascend  the  eminence  to  which  it  aspires. 

You  will  pardon  this  apparent  digression  from  my  subject.  My  limits 
would  not  allow  me  to  delmeate  the  iinatomy  of  Irish  history ;  I  could  only 


ox  CATHOLIC  EMAXCIPATIOX. 


a: 

exhibit  the  mere  skeleton ;  and  as  the  concession  of  Adrian  is  one  of  ita 
most  important  joints,  I  felt  prompted  by  a  sense  of  justice  to  the  calumni¬ 
ated  dead,  to  trace  its  connection  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times  in  which 
it  took  place. 

During  the  period  subsequent  to  the  English  invasion,  we  behold  noth¬ 
ing  but  ruin  and  desolation,  where  we  have  been  hitherto  admiring  the 
vision  of  .‘.reland's  now  departed  glory.  The  portion  of  the  country  which 
was  conquered  by  the  first  adventurers  was  denominated  the  Pale^  an  ap¬ 
propriate  and  significant  term,  pregnant  with  all  the  partiality  that  power 
could  confer  on  those  who  were  within  its  limits,  and  with  all  the  injus¬ 
tice,  tyranny,  and  oppression  which  the  spirit  of  lawless  conquest  could 
inflict  on  those  who  were  without.  By  virtue  of  the  state  secret,  the  little 
wire,  which  was  carefully  concealed  from  the  vulgar  gaze,  but  which 
moved  every  spring  in  the  machiflery  of  government,  the  seeds  of  national 
jealousy,  of  recijirocal  hatred  and  revenge,  were  sown  and  fostered ;  and 
when  these  passions  grew’  up  into  a  harvest  of  political  disorder,  then 
those  who  had  moved  the  wire  came  forth  from  behind  the  curtain,  in  the 
name  of  loyalty,  to  reap  the  profits.  They  had  a  right  to  them.  Thus,  the 
laws  produced  a  kind  of  reflex  ojjeration  profitable  to  the  governor  ancl  his 
minions,  in  proj)ortion  as  it  was  ruinous  to  the  people.  One  deputy  after 
another  appeared  to  represent  the  majesty  of  England ;  and  with  few'  ex- 
cejotions,  private  interest,  avarice,  and  ambition  were  the  standards  w'hich 
regulated  their  administration.  They  went  forth  at  intervals  to  extend 
the  “  pale and  when  they  had  depopulated  a  section  of  the  country, 
leaving  behind  them,  not  the  conquered  inhabitants,  but  the  silence  of 
death  and  the  solitude  of  the  sepulchre,  the  news  was  transmitted  to  Eng¬ 
land,  and  reached  the  monarch’s  ear  in  the  character  of  a  victory  “  gained 
over  the  natives.” 

In  the  judicial  department  the  case  was  even  w'orse,  if  possible.  The 
laws  stood  at  the  portals  of  judgment,  to  prevent  justice  from  entering ; 
and  when  murder  appeared,  his  sabre  reeking  with  human  blood,  the  first 
question  of  him  who  sat  upon  the  tribunal  w^as  touching  the  birth-place  of 
the  fallen  victim,  an  important  question ;  for  if  he  was  one  of  the  original 
proprietors  of  the  soil,  which  they  expressed  by  calling  him  a  “  mere  Irish¬ 
man,”  then  the  statute  declared  that  it  w’as  no  felony  to  kill  him.  The 
whole  nation,  at  diiferent  times,  petitioned  for  tlnQ  protection  of  the  English 
law's,  but  their  petitions  were  as  often  rejected.  This  is  a  sketch  of  the 
policy  adopted  and  pursued  by  the  government  in  Ireland,  from  the  inva¬ 
sion  dow'n  to  the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth;  but  the  nature  of  the 
present  occasion  would  make  it  criminal  in  me  to  torture  your  feelings  by 
any  further  description. 

This  bad  system  of  government  naturally  caused  Ireland  to  retrograde 
in  morals  and  in  virtue,  as  well  as  in  science  and  literature.  And  yet,  Sir 
John  Davis,  an  Englishman  and  a  Protestant,  tells  us  there  was  less  crime 
there  than  in  England,  in  the  reign  of  James  I.,  200  years  ago.  He  was 
then  attorney-general,  and  the  first  in  that  capacity  who  visited  all  the 
parts  of  Ireland  ;  his  office  qualified  him  to  pronounce,  and,  comparing  the 
annals  of  guilt  in  both  countries,  he  strikes  the  balance  of  morality  decidedly 
in  favor  of  Ireland.  A  similar  testimony  w'as  given,  the  other  day,  in  the 
House  of  Peers  (where  it  would  not  have  passed  uncontradicted,  if  it  had 
not  been  susceptible  of  proof),  by  another  Protestant  nobleman,  that  at  this 
moment  the  proportion  of  crime  is  doubly  greater  in  England  than  in  the 
unhappy  country  of  whose  ignorance  and  vices  so  much  has  been  said,  even 
on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  England,  and  every  other  country,  has  its 
splendid  virtues,  and  I  am  as  ready  to  proclaim  them  as  I  am  to  admit  that 
Ireland  has  her  numerous  vices.  But  I  mention  these  facts  as  a  matter  of 


B8 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


pleasing  astonishment,  that  her  vices  are  not  more.  When  we  reflect  that 
the  blessings  of  justice  and  mercy,  and  an  impartial  government,  which 
makes  other  nations  virtuous  and  haj^py,  have  been  denied  to  Ireland  for 
nearly  seven  hundred  years,  we  would  hardly  expect  to  find  a  remnant  of 
virtue  left ;  but  to  see  her  surpass  them  in  the  test  of  comparison,  this  must 
appear  a  phenomenon  in  the  order  of  morality.  For,  my  brethren,  there  is 
a  connection  between  the  cause  and  the  effect  in  moral  as  well  as  physical 
nature.  If  the  tempest  roll  in  fury  on  the  smoothest  sea,  that  sea  will  im- 
Ijibe  a  portion  of  the  spirit  that  disturbed  it ;  it  will  rise  from  its  slumbers, 
it  will  foam  and  rage,  and  woe  to  the  fragile  bark  that  is  overtaken  by  its 
indignation.  So,  if  a  people  are  oppressed,  if  their  treaties  are  violated,  if 
their  generous  confidence  is  abused,  and  their  professions  disbelieved,  and 
their  honor  doubted,  and  their  sacred  rights  invaded,  and  their  liberties 
trodden  under  foot — if,  in  a  word,  they  have  lost  everything  except  a  paltry 
life,  wdiich,  but  for  the  hope  of  religion,  would  not  be  worth  endurance, 
then  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  if  such  a  people  sometimes  turn  on  their 
oppressors  in  the  spirit  of  vindictive  retribution.  This  has  been  the  case 
more  than  once  in  unhappy  Ireland.  No  nation  could  feel  moi'e  keenly  the 
disgrace  of  her  degradation,  the  injustice  of  her  bondage  :  is  it,  then,  mat¬ 
ter  of  surprise  that  the  peculiar  sensibilities  of  her  heart  sometimes  rose  to 
her  head,  and  engendered  there  that  sj^ecies  of  political  frenzy  which  broke 
out  at  intervals  in  fitful,  wild,  and  sometimes  infuriated  ebullitions  of 
revenge  ? 

For  the  fact  is,  that  Ireland  at  all  times  understood  the  equal  rights  to 
which  she  was  entitled,  and  the  measure  of  strict  impartial  justice  without 
which  she  would  not,  she  could  not,  be  satisfied.  Begin  at  whatever  epoch 
you  think  proper  to  select,  and  descend  from  one  steji  to  another  of  her 
history  down  to  the  present  day,  test  the  feelings  of  every  generation 
as  you  2)ass,  and  you  will  perceive  that  no  duration  of  time  could  ever  tame 
the  mind  of  Ireland  to  the  yoke  of  unmerited  and  ignominious  servitude. 
You  might  tell  the  youth,  the  striifling  of  the  village,  or  the  peasant  boy, 
around  whose  tender  hands  you  bound  the  manacles  in  i:>unishment  of  his 
birthqflace,  that  they  came  to  him  by  lineal  descent,  that  his  fathers  had 
worn  them  for  ages,  that  they  were  consecrated  to  his  family,  hereditary 
a])pendage  of  the  soil ;  you  might  tell  him  all  this,  and  instead  of  concili¬ 
ating,  you  only  roused  his  impatience  for  the  moment  when  he  might 
burst  the  fetters,  and  remove  the  malediction.  What !  injustice  heredi¬ 
tary  ?  Oh,  no.  But  one  thing  was  hereditary — that  magnanimous  and 
immortal  s^jirit  of  the  nation,  which  for  so  many  ages  has  been  tortured, 
but  could  not  be  broken  on  oppression’s  wheel.  The  neck  of  Ireland  might 
have  been  bound  at  any  time,  on  a  level  with  her  feet,  in  the  dust ;  but,  even 
then,  her  soul,  towering  in  the  consciousness  of  its  own  original  integrity, 
stood  erect,  unsubdued,  unbending,  and — indomitable.  This  was  the 
secret  of  that  turbulence  of  character  which  ignorance  has  ascribed  to  her, 
and  recorded  against  her  in  the  book  of  calumny.  Until  recently  there 
was  no  mirror  to  reflect  on  England  and  on  the  world  the  image  of  her 
feelings,  but  there  were  at  all  times  the  scattered  materials  from  which 
such  a  mirror  might  have  been  fabricated.  Those  feelings  were  like  ob¬ 
structed  waters,  breaking  out  irregularly  wherever  they  found  an  issue ; 
when,  at  ’ength,  a  sujjerior  mind  arose  to  fireside  over  them  ;  then  they 
flowed  in  one  direction,  and,  as  they  advanced,  acquired  the  easy  majesty 
as  well  as  the  irresistiljle  influence  of  a  mighty  tide,  which  swept  away  the 
barriers  that  had  hitherto  prevented  justice  and  p)eace  from  embracing 
each  other. 

The  laws  of  England,  which  were  refused  to  the  country  while  their 
operation  might  have  been  salutary,  were  extended  in  the  reign  of  Eliza* 


ON  CATHOLIC  EMANCIPATION, 


39 


betli  when  they  had  been  new-modeled  in  accordance  with  the  change  ot 
religion  in  the  state,  and  were  no  longer  desirable.  Then,  for  the  first 
time,  they  took  their  march  throughout  all  Ireland,  bearing  liberty  in  one 
hand  and  degradation  in  the  other.  If  they  had  asked  the  apple  of  her  eye, 
in  exchange  for  the  boon  of  freedom  and  of  justice,  Ireland  would  have  given 
it.  But  much  as  she  loved  civil  liberty,  there  was  one  thing  that  she  loved 
infinitely  more  ;  it  was  the  faith  which  she  received  in  olden  times.  This 
she  regarded  as  the  boon  of  heaven  :  it  was  hers  before  she  knew  England ; 
it  was  at  all  times  the  solace  of  her  grief ;  it  was  the  anchor  of  her  last  and 
best  hope,  and  neither  bribery  nor  persecution  could  detach  her  from  it :  she  is 
at  all  times  seen  clinging  to  it  with  the  tenacity  of  despair :  thus  leaving  an¬ 
other  instance  to  prove  that  faith  is  stronger  than  death,  and  that  persecution 
can  make  martyrs  or  hypocrites,  and  there  its  power  ends.  The  civil  oppres¬ 
sion  of  Ireland  would  have  terminated  the  moment  she  embraced,  or  pretended 
to  embrace,  the  religion  which  the  Parliament  had  decreed,  and  were  deter¬ 
mined  to  support.  But  she  saw  no  reason  to  believe  in  its  veracity,  and  to 
profess  it  would  have  been  hypocrisy ;  it  would  have  been  acting  against  her 
conscience  ;  it  would  have  been  apostasy  from  her  God ;  it  would,  in  fine,  have 
been  that  base  thing  of  which  Ireland  has  proved  herself  incapable.  For  this 
she  is  entitled  to  the  admiration  of  the  world ;  because,  for  this  she  suffered. 
The  laws  continued  unequal,  and  the  inevitable  result  of  their  operation  was  to 
break  the  intercourse  of  charity  among  men  of  different  religions,  arraying  the 
Catholic  against  the  Protestant,  and  the  Protestant  against  the  Catholic ;  and 
in  spite  of  their  united  efforts  to  exclude  it,  intruding  perpetually  to  disturb 
the  harmonies  of  social  and  sometimes  domestic  life. 

You  may  be  surprised,  my  brethren,  that  I  have  dwelt  so  long  on  the  early 
portion  of  Ireland’s  history,  and  so  briefly  on  the  civil  thraldom  and  religious 
persecution  which  have  succeeded  each  other  since  the  English  invasion  in  the 
twelfth  century.  But  why  should  it  be  otherwise,  when  the  wisdom  of  better 
times  has  applied  an  effectual  remedy  to  the  evils  of  that  long-injured  country, 
and  she  herself  has  already  forgiven,  what  it  may  not  be  so  easy  to  forget  ?  It 
was  but  yesterday  the  Legislature  of  Great  Britain  covered  over  her  wounds 
with  the  mantle  of  justice,  and  mine  shall  not  be  the  hand  to  tear  it  off  so 
soon  Those  wounds  already  begin  to  cicatrize ;  and  they  say  that  darkness 
and  silence  are  best  calculated  to  promote  convalescence ;  and,  besides,  if  I  did 
exhibit  to  your  view  a  full  picture  of  Ireland’s  wrongs,  pity  would  rise  from 
the  canvass,  and  extort  the  tribute  of  your  tears ;  whereas  the  occasion  calls  for 
no  teal's,  except  peradventure  those  of  gratulation  and  of  joy. 

But  ray  brethren,  I  would  not  have  you  retire  from  this  jilace  unim¬ 
proved  by  the  moral  of  a  subject,  which,  but  for  its  illustrative  connection 
with  the  state  of  fallen  humanity,  w'ould  be  altogether  foreign  from  a 
Christian  pulpit.  Let  us  not  forget,  that  every  one  of  us  has  to  watch  the 
first  movements  of  the  very  same  passions  which  have  produced  so  many 
black  clouds  in  the  moral  as  well  as  political  atmosphere  of  now  regenerated 
Ireland.  For,  to  trace  her  misfortunes  to  any  national  peculiarity  in  the 
English  character,  would  be  unsatisfactory  and  unjust.  We  all  know  that 
the  genuine  English  character  is  proverbial  for  its  sterling,  almost  infalli¬ 
ble,  integrity — the  more  to  be  admired,  because  it  is  unclogged  by  any  out¬ 
ward  display.  Heither  would  it  be  just  to  trace  them  to  the  religion  of 
England,  because  Ireland’s  oppression  commenced  nearly  four  hundred 
years  before  that  religion  existed.  Religion  is  the  daughter  of  God ;  her 
office  is  to  pluck  thorns  out  of  the  human  breast,  not  to  plant  them — to 
prepare  men  for  a  better  world,  by  raising,  not  depressing  them  in  the  scale 
of  virtue  here.  It  would  be  cruel  to  charge  religion  with  the  crimes  of 
which  Ireland  has  been  the  victim,  not  only  since  the  Reformation,  but  be¬ 
fore,  when  there  was  but  one  religion,  and  the  good  of  both  nations  wor- 


40 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


shipped  God  around  the  same  altars.  Where,  then,  shall  we  find  the  solu¬ 
tion  ?  Go  to  the  ground  where  children  are  at  play :  wait  till  a  quarrel 
arises,  and  the  sjjoils  are  to  be  divided ;  and  ascertain  how  it  happens  that 
the  largest  portion  of  the  common  toys  remains  hy  right  in  possession  of 
the  strongest  or  most  artful  competitor.  Here  is  the  solution.  Here  is  the 
infant  passion ;  but  do  not  lose  sight  of  it  here ;  watch  it  up  to  manhood, 
pursue  it  across  the  ocean  to  the  shores  of  Africa,  and  there  you  will  detect 
it,  putting  manacles,  by  the  mme  rights  on  hands  that  were  free.  Observe 
its  operation  on  a  large  scale,  and  you  will  behold  it,  as  in  unhappy  Ire¬ 
land,  by  the  same  rights  grinding  down  the  immortal  energies  of  a  chival¬ 
rous  nation  under  the  millstone  of  predominant,  and  therefore  irresponsible 
pow-er. 

The  history  of  that  country  is  the  tragedy  of  the  bad  passions,  and 
every  good  man  rejoices  that  it  has  been  brought  to  a  close.  We  rejoice, 
because  the  Catholics  have  obtained  that  to  which  they  were  at  all  times  en¬ 
titled  by  the  rights  of  nature  and  the  laws  of  justice ;  we  rejoice  more,  be¬ 
cause  in  this  reason  and  principle  have  triunqihed  over  prejudice  and  folly. 
We  rejoice  for  the  sake  of  England  as  well  as  Ireland,  for  the  sake  of 
Protestants  as  well  as  Catholics.  We  rejoice  in  the  name  of  all  the  virtues, 
in  the  name  of  justice,  and  of  peace,  and  of  humanity,  and  of  religion,  and 
of  God.  To  Him  is  the  glory  and  the  praise.  He  has  made  use  of  human 
means,  and  great  must  be  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  have  been  made 
the  instruments  of  a  victory,  diflerent  from  other  victories,  in  this,  that  it 
has  cost  neither  blood  nor  tears.  Does  not  every  good  heart  in  this  assem- 
l)ly  rejoice  ?  Surely  that  generous  spirit  of  our  hajipy  country,  the  freest 
under  the  sun,  that  spirit  which  lately  cheered  the  captive  onward  in  the 
enterprise,  is  gladdened  by  its  success.  Those  who  look  back  to  Ireland  as 
the  home  of  their  infancy,  must  feel  the  influence  of  a  yet  stronger  sensa¬ 
tion.  But  what  must  be  the  feast  which  this  day  presents  to  the  feelings 
of  those  who  in  times  of  greater  peril,  and  for  the  object  we  commemorate, 
risked  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor — men  whose  for¬ 
tune  it  was  to  have  been  born  in  Ireland,  with  a  genius  which  the  Crown 
could  not  purchase,  the  Parliament  could  not  crush,  and  who  were  con¬ 
strained  to  leave  their  country,  because  — ^they  loved  their  country  too 
much. 

Greece  would  have  immortalized  them ;  and  America,  the  country  of 
their  choice,  does  honor  them,  as  they  do  honor  to  their  various  profes¬ 
sions  ;  their  pens  have  been  employed  even  here  in  the  vindication  of  their 
degraded  country  and  their  countrymen.  The  stigma  has  been  removed ; 
and  to  them  this  occasion  must  be  a  joyful  one.  Neither  is  that  alfection 
diminished  by  the  consideration  that  others  1)ear  away  the  honor  of  hav¬ 
ing  achieved  an  event,  which  their- exertions  contributed  so  much  to  accel¬ 
erate.  Posterity  will  do  them  justice;  and  their  names,  some  of  which  I 
could,  but  do  not  mention,  -will  stand  conspicuous  on  the  records  of  Irish 
talent  and  of  Irish  patriotism. 

But  enumeration  would  be  endless  as  the  subject  itself.  I  thank  you 
sincerely  for  your  kind  and  patient  attention ;  I  will  now  descend  from  this 
place  to  mingle  with  you  in  the  expression  of  our  common  gratitude  to 
Almighty  God,  for  the  termination  of  those  moral  evils  to  which  I  have 
alluded — and  with  you  also,  to  breathe  the  prayer  of  hope,  that  henceforth 
the  inhabitants  of  Ireland,  and  not  of  Ireland  alone,  but  of  every  country  on 
the  globe,  may  live  as  brethren,  if  not  in  religion,  at  least  in  social  kind¬ 
ness,  in  the  bond  of  holy  peace,  in  the  practice  of  virtue,  and  of  piety  and 
fidelity  to  our  common  and  blessed  God.  This  is  the  benediction  T  would 
invoke  upon  you  and  on  the  world.  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
^he  Sou,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. — Amen. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


41 


SPEECHES  ON  THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 

On  July  30th,  1840,  an  important  meeting  of  the  Catholics  of  New  York 
was  held  in  the  school-house  attached  to  St.  Patrick’s  Church,  at  which 
the  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Power  presided  ;  and  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of 
the  Right  Reverend  and  respected  Bishop,  stated  to  the  meeting  the  naked 
truth  respecting  the  origin  of  the  present  agitation  of  their  claims  as 
Catholics  to  a  portion  of  the  School  Fund  of  this  State,  for  the  education 
of  their  children.  Towards  the  end  of  last  January,  Dr.  Power  received  a 
letter  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Schneller,  of  Albany,  earnestly  urging  that  he 
should  come  and  judge  for  himself,  and  see  how  easy  it  would  be  for  the 
Catholics  to  obtain  a  portion  of  that  fund  which  was  set  apart  by  the  law 
for  the  education  of  all  the  children  of  the  commonwealth,  but  of  the 
benefits  of  which,  under  its  present  management,  they  were- unable,  as 
Catholics,  conscientiously  to  partake.  After  some  deliberation  he  called  a 
meeting  of  the  Trustees  of  all  the  Catholic  churches  in  the  city,  and  laid 
the  subject  before  them.  He  Icnew  that  amongst  those  trustees  were  men 
of  different  shades  of  politics,  but  he  also  knew,  and  he  said  it  in  the 
fullness  and  sincerity  of  his  heart,  that  politics  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question  upon  which  he  convened  them ;  that  it  was  a  question  which 
appealed  to  every  one  of  them  as  Catholics  with  equal  force,  whatever 
might  be  their  respective  political  opinions,  and  he  anticipated  no  dissen¬ 
sion,  no  wavering,  nd*hesitation  amongst  them  on  this  all-important  ques¬ 
tion,  and  he  was  not  disappointed.  They  unanimously  resolved  to  apply 
for  a  portion  of  that  fund  to  which  they  had  contributed  as  citizens  of 
this  State,  and  to  which  they  were  undoubtedly  entitled,  and  for  that 
purpose  agreed  that  he  should  go  to  Albany;  and  he  did  go  accordingly. 
And  having  gone,  he  found  nothing  but  honesty  of  purjiose,  as  he  believed, 
and  he  returned  to  this  city  thoroughly  persuaded  that  the  application 
would  be  successful  if  it  was  pressed  forward  with  Catholic  unanimity. 
And  this  expectation  he  doubted  not  would  have  been  realized  but  for  an 
unfortunate  article  that  appeared  in  the  Truth  Teller  of  this  city,  which 
endeavored  to  convert  what  was  purely  a  question  of  Catholic  and  religious 
princijile  into  a  political  one — slandered  their  motives,  and  declared  that 
with  sinister  and  unworthy  objects  in  view,  they  were  preparing  to  press 
upon  the  Corporation  of  the  city  a  demand  which,  if  complied  with, 
would  be  a  palpable  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  State,  and  the 
equality  of  rights  which  it  secured  to  all  citizens.  This  opening  of  the 
warfare  against  the  Catholics  proceeding  from  amongst  themselves,  gave 
color  and  support  to  the  hostility  which  they  afterwards  experienced. 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  then  rose  to  address  the  meeting,  and  was 
received  with  enthusiastic  plaudits.  When  they  had  subsided,  he  s;fid,  he 


42 


ARCHtrSHOP  HUGHES. 


had  listened  with  great  attention  to  the  explanations  otFered  by  the  Very 
Reverend  gentleman  who  presided  over  the  meeting,  and  to  those  n^hich  fol¬ 
lowed  from  Dr.  Sweeney;  and  it  afforded  him  very  great  pleasure  and  Con¬ 
solation  to  have  reason  to  believe,  from  the  solemnity  of  the  statements  of 
both,  that  a  higher  and  a  holier  feeling  than  mere  politics  was  the  soul  of 
this  agitation.  (Applause.)  The  reason  why  he  expressed  this  pleasure  was, 
that  of  all  things  he  dreaded  the  introduction  of  political  feelings  as  most 
destructive  of  their  internal  peace,  and  of  that  calmness  of  mind  which  (fis- 
pioses  man  either  for  just  judgment  or  the  discharge  of  his  religious  obliga¬ 
tions.  lie  had  known  nothing  which  was  so  intoxicating  in  its  effects,  even 
on  good  men,  as  that  unexplained  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  human  mind, 
the  influence  of  party  politics.  He  was  glad,  therefore,  to  hear  the  disclaim¬ 
ers  which  were  made  this  evening ;  for  when  he  had  read,  on  a  foreign  shore, 
of  the  attempt  made  in  one  of  the  churches  here  to  distribute  papers  in  the 
pews,  he  felt  how  far  that  feeling  influenced  the  actions  of  men.  lie  had 
come  to  this  meeting  because  he  believed  it  was  not  a  political  meeting ;  be¬ 
cause  the  question  which  brought  that  meeting  together  was  infinitely  above 
anything  that  could  be  found  in  mere  politics.  It  was  a  question,  too,  that 
was  not  n.ew  to  him ;  it  was  a  question  on  which  he  had  deeply  reflected 
before  he  had  departed  for  a  foreign  land,  not  foreseeing  that  it  would  arise 
before  his  return,  the  question,  namely,  whether  Catholic  children  were  ex¬ 
posed  to  the  danger  of  forfeiting  their  faith  by  an  attendance  on  these  schools. 
For  that  purpose  he  had  obtained  a  copy  of  all  the  books  which  it  was  stated 
to  him  were  used  in  these  schools,  and  he  had  examined  them  deliberately ; 
and  though  he  found  some  things  that  were  objectionable,  yet,  on  the  whole, 
they  appeared  to  him  sufficiently  free  from  anything  that  could  be  construed 
into  a  direct  attack  on  their  religious  principles.  He  had  had  reason,  howevei’, 
since  his  return,  to  believe  that,  in  fact,  all  the  books  had  not  been  submitted 
to  him,  but  that  some  books  which  contained  objectionable  matter  were 
withheld.  He  had  seen  one  such  at  least,  since,  and  ke  was  satisfied  that  no 
Catholic  parent,  who  felt  his  responsibility  to  God,  could  sufl’er  it  as  a  school¬ 
book  in  the  hands  of  his  children;  and  therefore  it  was,  that  he  was  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  question  which  then  engaged  their  attention ;  not  as  a  politi¬ 
cian,  but  as  a  Bishop  having  charge  of  tliis  Diocese,  answerable  to  the  Eter¬ 
nal  Judge  for  the  discharge  of  his  responsible  duty,  which  included  a  jealous 
and  tender  solicitude  that  the  infant  mind  received  only  suitable  food,  and 
such  instruction  as  was  salutary  in  its  tendency.  Then,  with  these  remarks, 
and  those  which  had  gone  before,  he  felt,  if  politics  were  mixed  up  with  the 
question  under  discussion,  by  others,  that  meeting  was  not  responsible  for  it ; 
and  he  hoped  that  in  future  time,  politics,  except  as  a  corollary,  would  be 
wholly  left  out  of  consideration,  and  that  parties  and  party  men  would  be 
left  wholly  to  themselves.  They  would  see,  before  he  finished,  the  necessity 
of  this  course.  But  if  he  could  have  thought  that  mere  politics  had  brought 
them  together,  he  should  have  felt  it  a  reproach  to  themselves,  and  a  dese¬ 
cration  of  that  place,  connected  as  it  was  with  the  Cathedral  of  the  Diocese. 
He  therefore  again  rejoiced  that  higher  purposes  had  brought  them  together  ; 
and  he  would  observe  that,  feeling  as  he  did  the  injustice  exercised  towards 
the  Catholics  by  tlie  operation  of  the  Common  School  system,  as  it  was  now 
dispensed,  if  they  had  not  been  previously  called  together,  before  he  had 
been  home  three  weeks,  he  would  have  warned  Catholics  either  to  have  that 
system  of  education  expurgated,  or  to  withdraw  their  children  from  it. 
True,  it  professed  to  be  a  system  of  Common  School  education,  but  it  was 
equally  true,  that  while  its  great  professed  charm  was  the  expulsion  of  sec¬ 
tarianism,  there  tvas  in  it,  and  inseparable  from  it,  a  sectarianism  of  another 
kind,  which  was  sapping  the  young  minds  of  the  Catholic  children ;  and  an- 
happily,  though  parents  might  impart  instruction  to  their  offspring,  the  ope- 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION". 


43 


ation  f.f  tins  system  was  such  that  the  instruction  of  the  parent  was  like 
wmter  dtopped  into  a  vessel  that  leaked  below;  it  passed  away,  and  nothing 
was  found  remaining;  the  labor  of  parents  was  neutralized  by  secret  indu- 
ences,  and  notwithstanding  all  that  their  parents  and  pastors  were  doing  to 
engraft  in  the  minds  of  their  children  the  faith  they  had  received  from  their 
fathers,  tliey  are  entirely  disappointed  in  the  result.  It  wms  not  his  intention 
to  examine  at  length  the  tendency  of  the  system  in  its  civil  and  social  hear¬ 
ings,  nor  to  inquire  whether  a  wise  statesman  would  adopt  such  a  system, 
but  he  hesitated  whether  wise  statesmen,  in  a  country  like  this,  would 
recommend  it,  even  under  these  relations.  Did  they  know  whence  it  came  ? 
It  originated  in  the  dark  regions  of  Prussia.  And  why  ?  Because  the  King 
of  Prussia  saw  the  time  was  coming  when  the  people  would  be  educated ; 
and  with  the  wisdom  and  cunning  of  absolute  diplomacy,  he  thought  that 
education,  which  the  people  were  determined  to  have,  might  be  made  by 
delicate  means,  and  skillful  management,  an  admirable  instrument  for  work¬ 
ing  out  the  purposes  of  enlightened  despotism.  Hence  the  Common  School 
system  of  that  country.  And  we  all  know  what  grandiloquent  praises  were 
bestowed  on  the  great  and  liberal  monarch.  Men  exclaimed,  “  See  what  even 
the  absolute  King  of  Prussia  has  done  for  the  cause  of  education !”  Oh !  but 
he  took  care  to  have  the  masters  and  the  whole  system  under  his  own  con¬ 
trol.  That  scheme  having  succeeded,  another  was  introduced  on  a  still  more 
comprehensive  plan,  viz.,  a  plan  not  only  of  a  common  education,  but  of  a  com¬ 
mon  religion.  In  those  dominions  there  were  two  distinct  branches,  the 
Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists  (they  knew  that  the  Catholics  were  not  the 
subjects  for  such  an  experiment),  and  these  two  branches  were  compelled  to 
meet,  where  they  never  met  before,  and  read  a  common  liturgy.  The  King 
allowed  them,  indeed,  their  own  opinions  in  private :  one  might  be  Lutheran 
and  the  other  Calvinist,  in  private ;  but,  for  the  good  of  the  State  and  the 
general  harmony,  they  were  made  to  coalesce  in  a  common  ritual,  prepared 
by  himself.  He  carried  this  system  with  the  Protestants ;  but  he  could  not 
with  the  Catholics.  (Applause.)  From  that  country,  then,  this  common 
education  system  spread,  and  in  France  education  is  a  mere  bureau  of  the 
Police,  and  yet  that  government  wants  credit  for  this  system  of  education, 
and  for  taking  from  the  parent  his  peculiar  duties.  They  go  to  the  parent 
and  say,  in  effect,  “We  are  more  interested  in  the  education  of  your  children 
than  you  can  be.” 

The  Riglit  Rev.  Bishop  continued :  God  forbid  that  he  should  even  suspect 
that  our  Government  had  such  feelings.  The  policy  of  statesmen  might  be 
bad,  while  their  intentions  were  good,  and  that  the  policy  of  this  system  was 
bad  would  be  seen,  by  reflecting  how  it  operated  in  religious  belief.  They 
wished  a  common  education,  because  education  is  one  of  the  greatest  of 
blessings,  and  they  knew  no  religious  denomination  would  have  their  con¬ 
sciences  tyrannized  over.  They  exclude  all  sectarianism,  so  called  ;  but  they 
have  here  a  secret  power  of  deceit,  which,  wherever  they  go,  operates  on 
the  young  mind.  Now,  this  system  was  manifestly  not  essential  to  the 
preservation  of  the  United  States,  or  of  this  State  ;  and  what  were  its  bear¬ 
ings  on  the  inhabitants  of  the  State?  The  system  has  not  yet  been  tested  by 
its  results ;  sufficient  time  has  not  elapsed  to  develop  them ;  but  when  they 
reflected  that  all  morality  was  founded  on  religion,  and  that  this  w.as  an 
attempt  to  make  man  moral  on  the  basis  of  education  without  religion, 
he  would  ask  what  could  be  the  harvest  that  such  culture  would  produce, 
and  he  replied,  time  alone  can  proclaim  and  determine.  For  his  own  part, 
he  was  of  opinion  though  it  was  not  nominally  infidelity,  that  it  was  practical 
infidelity,  and  that,  instead  of  sectarianism,  they  would  have  those  with  no 
feeling  in  favor  of  religion;  that  the  bearings  of  the  system  were  to  produce 
men  with  uo  feeling  but  of  indifference  for  religion,  unless,  perhaps,  a  feeling 


44 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  contempt  for  religion.  The  wise,  the  immortal  Washingtoit,  he  who  had 
so  much  talent  and  so  much  dignity  of  character,  leaving,  as  it  were,  the  last 
words  of  the  dying  patriot  to  his  country,  said,  “Beware  of  the  man  who 
attempts  to  inculcate  morality  without  religion.”  (Applause.)  That  was 
'Washington;  and  he  wondered  whether  the  advocates  of  this  system,  who 
j)roclaimed  as  a  point  of  merit  that  it  excluded  all  religion,  conceived  them¬ 
selves  to  be  following  in  the  footsteps  of  the  illustrious  "Washington.  The 
Right  Rev.  Prelate  then  said  he  would  pass  from  that  to  the  religious  bear¬ 
ings  of  the  question,  and  he  thought  he  could  state  to  them  safely  that  a 
Catholic  could  not  conscientiously  approve  this  system,  if  he  were  an  enlight¬ 
ened  Catholic,  and  understood  his  duty  to  his  God  and  the  principles  of  his 
religion,  and  remembered  that  education  comprehended  the  mysterious  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  young  mind,  with  its  three-fold  faculties  of  will,  memory, 
and  understanding.  The  inculcation  of  knowledge  is  only  a  part  of  an  en¬ 
lightened  system  of  education ;  a  training  of  the  will  is  as  necessary  as  the 
cultivation  of  the  other  faculties  of  the  mind,  and  as  the  Common  School  sys¬ 
tem  is  in  this  respect  deficient,  he  repeated  that  a  parent  who  understood 
that  system,  and  had  a  knowledge  of  his  religion  and  of  his  own  responsi¬ 
bility,  would  never  submit  to  it.  The  Catholic  primitive,  continuous,  per¬ 
petual  church  never  recognized  the  principles  of  leaving  the  mind  of  a  child 
without  religious  culture  until  it  grew  up.  Such  a  course  was  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  their  church,  and  was  contrary  to  the  practice  and  preaching 
of  the  apostles  to  the  Pagans ;  for  when  they  converted  the  Pagan  head  of  a 
family,  the  children  Avere  also  trained  up  to  the  church  as  a  part  of  the 
formation  of  the  mind.  The  parent  was  the  coadjutor  of  the  pastor,  and 
both  were  like  guardian  angels  over  the  tender  mind,  and  thus  they  transmit¬ 
ted  the  blessings  they  enjoyed  to  their  children.  Therefore,  he  said,  this 
common  system  was  Protestant,  but  it  was  not  the  system  Catholics  could 
adopt  with  their  children,  because  they  gave  religious  instruction  to  their 
children  as  a  duty  which  was  imperative,  while  Protestants  were  indepen¬ 
dent  of  religious  education,  and  were  of  opinion  that  it  was  best  to  have 
religion  to  come  at  some  uncertain  period,  when  a  change  of  heart  ivould 
occur,  and  a  person  was  to  “join  the  church.”  But  Catholics  had  the 
spiritual  interests  of  their  children  at  heart,  and  their  own  responsibility 
for  their  eternal  welfare ;  and  though  by  sending  them  to  these  Com¬ 
mon  Schools  they  might  not  be  taught  Presbyterianism,  or  Episcopalian - 
ism,  or  Baptism;  yet,  if  by  drop  following  drop,  if  by  expression  following 
expression,  their  young  minds  should  be  influenced,  alienated,  and  imper¬ 
ceptibly  drawn  from  their  own  faith,  he  asked,  could  a  parent,  knowing  his 
obligation  to  God,  permit  it.  He  contended  for  the  right  of  conscience,  and 
for  the  sacred  right  of  every  man  to  educate  his  own  children ;  and  when 
these  are  the  consequences  that  follow  this  system  of  Common  School  educa¬ 
tion,  he  asked  if  it  were  just  to  tax  such  a  man  for  its  support,  while  its  ten¬ 
dency  was  to  draw  away  the  mind  of  his  child  from  the  religion  which  he 
professed  and  which  he  desired  to  teach  him.  (Applause.)  The  question 
was  a  simple  one,  and  he  was  sure  they  would  see  but  very  little  difierence 
between  it  and  the  question  of  tithes  for  the  support  of  the  Protestant  church 
in  England  and  Ireland.  To  be  sure,  in  those  countries  they  had  not  ex¬ 
cluded  the  Catholics  from  the  churches :  they  said,  our  churches  are  open ; 
we  have  provided  them  expressly  for  your  benefit;  if  you  don’t  come,  it  is 
your  own  fault ;  but  whether  you  come  or  not,  you  must  give  us  your  mon¬ 
ey,  and  they  did  accordingly  take  the  Catholics’  money.  Did  the  Catliolics 
submit?  Ho,  they  adhered  to  their  religion,  and  when  they  did  not  put 
their  own  hands  into  their  pockets,  somebody  else  did,  and  took  out  their 
money  for  them.  (Laughter.)  lie  did  not  ask  for  the  Catholics  any  thing 
that  was  not  just;  that  was  not  constitutional.  All  laws  of  the  country — 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


45 


all  constitutional  laws — are  necessarily  founded  on  the  principle  which  se¬ 
cures  to  every  man  his  religious  rights,  and  if  any  law  trenches  on  that 
right,  he  asserted  that  it  was  not,  and  could  not  he  constitiUional.  In  this 
he  was  borne  out  even  by  the  former  practice  of  those  who  administered  the 
school  fund.  The  fact  was,  that  fora  longtime  this  money  was  distributed 
among  the  different  religious  societies  for  the  purpose  of  education.  He  was 
told  there  were  1,500  Catholic  children  attending  these  schools:  and  suppose 
Catholics  gave  them  the  same  education  that  they  would  got  in  those  schools, 
did  they  not  etfect  the  same  benefit  to  the  State?  But  if,  with  morality, 
they  also  at  proper  times  inculcated  the  principles  of  religion,  he  asked 
whether  they  should  not  make  the  rising  generation  better  citizens,  more 
upright  in  their  intercourse  with  their  fellow-men,  more  mindful  of  the 
sacred  relations  of  the  marriage  state,  and  more  attentive  to  their  social  du¬ 
ties?  He  had  been  told  that  the  old  system  was  not  attended  with  inconve¬ 
nience,  but  that  some  agent  or  minister  of  those  funds  had  peculated  or  mis¬ 
applied  them — but  he  was  not  a  Catholic.  (Laughter.) 

But  why  were  the  Catholics  to  suffer  for  the  peculation  of  others  ?  It 
was  a  constitutional  principle  that  every  man  should  enjoy  not  only  his 
0'5\Ti  opinions,  but  that  he  should  discharge  according  to  his  own  sense  of 
it,  his  duty  to  God,  of  which  the  education  of  his  child  is  one  of  the  most 
sacred.  He  claimed  nothing  for  the  Catholic  Avhich  was  not  at  the  same 
time  due  to  other  denominations — to  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile.  He  was 
pleased  that  the  gentlemen  who  had  preceded  him  had  advocated  no 
crooked  policy — the  changing  a  name  and  not  a  cause ;  and  he  hoped  the 
time  had  gone  by  Avhen  Catholics  would  bend  their  heads  as  though  to 
court  a  burden,  but  that  henceforth  they  would  stand  erect.  It  was  no¬ 
thing  but  simple  justice  which  they  contended  for,  and  if  they  should  not 
get  it,  they  must  only  submit  with  the  philosophy  which  gives  dignity  to 
disappointment.  (Great  applause.) 

He  had  arrived  so  recently  that  he  had  not  had  time  to  examine  all  the 
facts  in  the  case  ;  but  the  testimony  of  the  clergy  Avhom  he  had  consulted 
was  unanimous  and  decisive  that  the  influence  of  these  schools  is  prejudi¬ 
cial  to  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  children.  Then  the  question  resolved 
itself  into  this — should  they  submit  to  this  if  they  had  the  power  to  cor¬ 
rect  it ;  or  should  they  submit  even  without  an  effort  to  correct  it  ?  That 
was  the  question,  and  it  had  three  issues.  First,  those  who  had  the  dispo¬ 
sition  of  these  funds  should  dispense  them  according  to  that  clear  and 
beautiful  privilege  of  the  Constitution,  which  secures  the  religious  rights 
of  all  and  inflicts  evil  on  none.  Now  if  they  gave  Catholics  a  ijortion  of 
that  fund  after  taxing  them  for  the  accumulation  of  the  fund,  the  benefit 
to  the  State  would  be  the  same  and  the  disijosition  would  be  consistent  with 
their  constitutional  right,  and  they  should  receive  it  gratefully  from  those 
who  had  the  power  to  give  it.  But  if  they  insisted  that  Catholics  should 
pay  their  money,  and  after  seeing  that  they  did  pay,  no  real  benefit  was 
conferred  on  them  in  return,  but  injury,  he  left  it  to  those  concerned  whe¬ 
ther  they  would  go  on  in  support  of  a  system  of  that  kind.  He  had  an< 
illustration  in  point — not  one  furnished  by  Catholics,  but  by  another  de¬ 
nomination  whose  magnanimity  in  contending  for  the  principle  of  right 
did  them  credit — he  alluded  to  the  Synod  of  Ulster,  the  Presbyterians  of 
Ireland.  They  saw  a  system  of  religious  instruction  for  the  National 
Schools  in  Ireland  made  up  by  the  Government,  as  a  kind  of  mixture  of 
diluted  Scripture  into  essays  which  would  suit  either  Unitarians,  or  Meth¬ 
odists,  or  Baptists,  or  Episcopalians — a  religious  compound  Avhich  did 
not  mean  any  thing  precisely,  but  from  which  any  one  might  take  what  he 
pleased.  Now  the  Presbyterians,  according  to  their  religious  belief,  had  a 
fixed  principle  that  the  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone,  wan 


46 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


the  best  book  of  Education,  and  they  protested  against  this  system  which 
did  not  admit  the  Bible ;  and  they  stood  up  fdi'  their  rights,  and  that 
strong  iron-handed  government,  as  it  is,  granted  their  claim ;  and  he  asked 
if  it  would  not  have  been  doing  violence  to  those  people  to  have  taxed 
them  for  the  support  of  a  system  that  would  have  been  destructive  of  their 
religious  principles.  Here  was  a  case  in  point ;  and  in  precisely  the  same 
course  they  were  called  ui^on  by  the  circumstances  of  the  present  case,  to 
follow.  And  let  him  observe  that  men  may  weigh  but  little,  and  political 
I)arties  may  weigh  but  little,  and  in  point  of  importance,  even  money  may 
weigh  but  little  :  men  may  change,  but  if  they  took  principle  for  their 
guide  and  disencumbered  it  of  all  the  rubbish  of  politics  and  all  such 
things,  they  would  see  it  shine  like  a  ray  of  light.  What  was  the  princi¬ 
ple  in  this  case  to  consider  which  they  were  convened  together  ?  \Vhy  if 
they  were  convinced,  as  he  was,  of  the  evil  of  the  present  system,  they 
could  not  send  their  children  to  these  Common  Schools  with  safety,  as  they 
are  now  constituted.  It  remained,  then,  that  they  ask  those  having 
the  power  to  dispense  a  remedy  to  do  it.  If  Catholics  contributed  to  the 
funds  and  a  jiroportion  were  returned  to  them  to  be  expended  in  precisely 
the  same  way  as  at  present,  while  Catholics  preserved  their  direct  religious 
rights,  they  would  be  content,  and  no  other  party  would  have  cause  to 
complain.  But,  as  he  had  a  book  used  in  these  Common  Schools  with  him, 
which  had  been  this  day  handed  to  him  by  Hr.  Power,  he  would  read  one 
of  its  amiable  little  chapters  to  show  its  insidious  and  dangerous  tendency 
and  to  illustrate  the  system.  The  chapter  is  as  follows  ; 

It  was  Sunday  morniny.  All  the  bells  were  ringing  for  church,  and  all  the  streets 
were  filled  with  people,  moving  in  all  directions,  and  here  numbers  of  well-dressed 
persons,  and  a  long  train  of  charity  children  were  thronging  in  at  the  wide  doors  of  a 
iiaudsome  church  ;  there  a  miinber  equally  gay  in  dress  were  entering  an  elegant 
meeting-house.  A  Roman  Catholic  congregation  was  turning  into  their  chapel ;  every 
one  crossing  himself,  with  a  finger  dipped  in  holy  water,  as  he  went  in. 

The  opposite  side  of  the  street  was  covered  with  Quakers,  distinguished  by  their 
plain  and  neat  attire,  who  walked  without  ceremony  into  a  room  as  plain  as  themselves, 
and  took  their  seats,  the  men  on  one  side,  the  women  on  the  other,  in  silence.  A 
spacious  building  was  filled  with  an  overflowing  crowd  of  Methodists,  while  a  small 
society  of  Baptists  assembled  in  the  neighborhood. 

Presently  the  services  began.  Some  of  the  churches  resounded  with  the  solemn 
organ,  and  the  murmuring  of  voices  following  the  minister  in  pr.ayer;  in  others  a  single 
voice  was  heard  ;  and  in  the  quiet  assembly  of  the  Quakers  not  a  sound  was  uttered. 

Mr.  Ambrose  led  his  son  Edwin  round  these  assemblies ;  he  observed  them  all  with 
great  attention,  but  he  did  not  so  much  as  whisper  lest  he  should  interrupt  any  one. 
\Yhen  he  was  alone  with  his  father,  “  Why,”  said  Edwin,  “  do  not  all  people  agree  to 
go  to  the  same  place,  and  to  worship  God  in  the  same  way  ?  ” 

“  And  why  should  they  agree?  ”  replied  his  father.  “Do  you  not  see  that  people 
differ  in  a  hundred  other  things?  Do  they  all  dress  alike,  and  eat  and  drink  alike,  and 
keep  the  same  hours,  and  use  the  same  diversion  ?” 

“  In  those  things  they  have  a  right  to  do  as  they  please,”  said  Edwin. 

“  They  have  a  right,  too,”  answered  his  father,  “  to  worship  God  as  they  please.  It 
is  their  own  business,  and  concerns  none  but  themselves.” 

And  this,  said  the  Kt.  Eev.  Bishop,  is  one  of  the  lessons  for  children.  Now, 
who  docs  not  see  the  malice  of  this,  and  how  it  will  operate  on  the  minds  of 
children  of  quick  perceptions  ?  and  children  are  capable  of  observing,  and  of  im¬ 
bibing  in  their  souls  either  good  or  bad  instruction,  at  a  very  early  age. 

“  They  have  a  right,  too,”  answered  his  father,  “  to  worship  God  as  they  please.  It  is 
Ihcir  own  business,  and  concerns  none  but  themselves.” 

“  But  has  not  God  ordered  particular  ways  of  worshiping  him  ?” 

Why  the  child  appears  to  have  much  more  sense  than  his  father,  (Laughter, ) 

“  But  has  not  God  ordered  particular  ways  of  worshiping  him  ?” 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


4t 


“  He  has  d  .rected  the  mind  and  spirit  with  which  he  is  to  be  worshiped,  but  not  the 
manner.  That  is  left  for  every  one  to  choose.  All  these  people  like  their  own  way  lest.’' 

And  this  to  children,  you  observe. 

“  The  several  congregations  now  began  to  be  dismissed,  and  streets  were  again  oi'er- 
sprea-d  with  persons  going  to  their  own  homes.  It  chanced  that  a  poor  man  fell  down 
in  the  street  in  a  fit  of  apoplexy,  and  la3'  for  dead ;  his  wife  and  children  stood  round 
him,  crying  and  lamenting  in  the  bitterest  distress.  The  beholders  immediately  flocked 
round,  and  with  looks  and  expressions  of  compassion  gave  their  help.  A  Churchman 
raised  the  man  from  the  ground  by  lifting  him  under  the  arms,  while  a  Presbyterian 
held  his  head,  and  wiped  his  face  with  his  handkerchief.  A  Roman  Catholic  lady  took 
out  her  smelling-bottle,  and  applied  it  to  her  nose.  A  Methodist  ran  for  a  doctor.  A 
Quaker  supported  and  comforted  the  woman  ;  and  a  Baptist  took  care  of  the  children.” 

Edwin  and  his  father  looked  on.  “  Here,’’  said  Mr.  Ambrose,  ”  is  a  thing  onwhich  man¬ 
kind  is  made  to  agree.” 

So  that  religion  is  a  matter  of  choice,  but  humanity  is  that  in  which  all 
agree.  Why,  he  asked,  if  this  humanity  did  not  exist  before  Jesus  Christ  ? 
Yes,  the  Pagans  understoo'd  it.  But  the  malice  was  not  so  much  in  approving 
good  actions  as  in  throwing  ridicule  on  ail  religion ;  and  yet  this  is  the  system 
of  instruction  which  our  statesmen  adopt  for  our  youth — a  system  whidr  will 
give  us  what  Washington  cautioned  us  against,  “  morality  without  religion.” 

Let  there  be  granted  to  the  Catholics  a  fair  and  just  proportion  of  the  funds 
appropriated  for  the  Common  Schools,  provided  the  Catholics  will  do  with  it 
the  same  thing  that  is  done  in  the  Common  Schools,  and  leave  no  reason  to 
complain  that  the  system  is  not  followed.  If  they  wdll  do  that  they  will  take 
away  the  Catholic’s  cause  of  anxiety  for  his  children.  Then;  if  they  will  not 
give  the  Catholics  a  due  proportion  of  the  funds,  let  them  be  released  from  the 
taxes  for  the  creation  of  this  fund.  But  if  they  will  do  neither,  and  the  present 
.system  is  insisted  upon,  the  question  is  whether  Catholics,  even  in  this  country, 
are  not  compelled  to  do  that  for  the  Common  Schools,  which  the  Catholics  of 
Ireland  do  for  the  English  church,  contribute  to  that  of  which,  in  their  con¬ 
sciences,  they  cannot  avail  themselves,  (Applause.) 

One  word,  in  conclusion,  of  politics  and  political  men.  For  his  part,  he  had 
reason  to  believe — there  were  good  patriots  no  doubt  of  both  parties,  though 
perhaps  such  men  were  small  in  numbers — but  his  opinion  of  the  mass  of  them 
was,  that  they  care  very  little  for  us  or  for  our  rights,  provided  they  can  have 
our  services.  That  was  bis  opinion  of  them  generally  speaking ;  and  therefore 
he  belonged  to  neither  party ;  nor  should  he  ever  belong  to  either  party.  (Great 
applause.)  He  cared  not  much  which  party  succeeded;  he  thought  that  both 
one  and  the  other  were  like  the  two  sides  of  a  copper ;  but  one  thing  he  should 
like  to  see,  whichever  party  might  be  in  power — he  should  like  to  see  justice 
done  to  Catholics,  for  great  respect  for  them  was  professed  when  their  services 
were  required.  He  conceived,  then,  the  principles  to  which  he  had  adverted 
claimed  their  first  regard ;  and  if  it  were,  as  it  struck  him,  then  the  Catholics’ 
first  duty  should  be  to  secure  the  rights  of  conscience  for  themselves  and  for 
their  children.  Men  were  changing,  and  he  advised  them,  strenuously  advised 
them  to  look  simply  to  principle.  It  would  be  to  them  a  guide ;  and  whatever 
course  was  taken,  he  should  like  to  see  them  throw  overboard  person  entirely. 
He  should  like  to  see  principle  laid  down  as  the  guide  of  Catholics ;  and  this 
principle  spread  out  to  reasonable  men  of  every  party,  showing  that  they  had 
not  a  fair  participation  in  the  rights  of  conscience,  of  which  this  system  deprived 
them.  Then  they  would  be  able  to  judge  between  friends  and  enemies,  and  he 
could  not  be  a  true  iLnerican  that  would  impose  burdens  to  support  a  system 
which  weakened  their  children’s  regard  for  religion,  and  drew  them  from  the 
faith  of  their  fathers.  That  was  precisely  the  view  in  which  the  case  presented 
itself  to  him ;  and  whether  this  question  had  come  up  or  not,  before  his  re¬ 
turn,  it  had  Ijeen  his  intention  most  assuredl}^  to  draw  the  attention  of  Catho- 

ics  to  it.  But  now  let  them  not  be  ready  to  impute  motives — evil  motives  to 


48 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


each  other.  Let  them  always  be  cautious  not  to  impute  had  motives  to  each 
other.  Men  will  differ  in  their  views ;  and  he  who  is  first  to^  impute  a  bad 
motive  to  his  neighbor,  is  most  liable  to  be  misrepresented  himself  in  turn. 
There  was  a  way  of  treating  all  questions,  and  yet  leaving  men’s  characters 
safe — not  to  weigh  men’s  intentions,  but  leave  them  to  God.  It  was  not  for 
men,  living  men,  to  judge  of  the  intentions  of  their  fellow-men.  But  let  them 
as  Catholics  and  as  citizens  prove  themselves  worthy  of  that  constitution  under 
which  they  lived,  and  which  they  must  be  prepared  to  support.  But  could 
they  support  the  system  which  he  had  explained  ?  He  was  satisfied  they 
could  not,  and  on  this  subject  he  believed  there  was  not  a  difference  of  opinion 
in  the  whole  body  of  the  clergy  in  New  York. 

[The  Right  Rev.  Prelate  resumed  his  seat  amidst  great  applause.] 


Meeting  in  the  Basement  of  St.  James’  Clmrcli, 

July  27,  1840 

Pursuant  to  a  resolution  of  the  meeting  held  in  St.  Patrick’s 
School-room,  an  adjourned  meeting  of  the  Catholics  of  New  York 
was  held  in  the  School-room  in  the  basement  of  St.  James’  Church, 
James  street.  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  was  called  to  the  chair,  and 
the  secretaries  of  previous  meeting  were  re-elected  to  their  respective 
offices.  One  of  the  secretaries  having  read  the  minutes  of  the  last 
meeting,  the  venerable  chairman  opened  the  business  of  the  evening 
with  a  few  pertinent  remarks,  during  which  the  Right  Reverend 
Bishop  Hughes  entered  the  room,  accompanied  by  a  large  body  of 
clergymen,  and  on  being  recognized  he  was  loudly  cheered.  The 
applause  having  subsided,  the  chairman  proceeded  with  his  re¬ 
marks,  and  made  allusion  to  some  published  statements  respecting 
his  share  in  the  series  of  meetings  which  tliey  had  held,  and 
denied  that  he  was  ambitious  to  be  more  than  a  subaltern  in  their 
just  and  righteous  cause — a  cause  which  tha't  great  meeting  proved 
to  be  one  of  deep  and  general  interest  with  the  Catholics  of  the 
city — and  a  cause  which  interested  so  large  a  number,  he  was  satis¬ 
fied,  must  ultimately  succeed.  That  it  had  not  succeeded  before, 
he  believed,  was  attributable  to  the  fact  that  the  public  di  il  not  un¬ 
derstand  the  question,  nor  Avould  they  attend  to  it  until  Catholics 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


49 


made  themselves  heard.  He  repudiated  any  political  feeling  in 
connection  with  this  subject,  and  counseled  the  Catholics  to  unani¬ 
mity,  for  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  The  Com¬ 
mon  School  System  with  which  they  warred,  he  designated  as  a 
monopoly  of  the  worst  kind,  and  in  illustration  of  its  evils  he  said 
that  now  $111,000  a  year  were  spent  for  the  education  of  less 
than  12,000  children,  whereas,  if  the  claims  of  the  Catholics  were 
conceded,  upwards  of  30,000  children  would  be  educated  for  the 
same  amount.  After  a  few  other  observations  he  resumed  his  seat 
loudly  applauded. 

^le  Right  Reverend  Bishop  Hughes  then  came  forward  and  was 
received  with  great  applause.  He  said,  as  the  evening  was  short, 
and  as  the  object  of  the  meeting  was  practicalj  he  had  deemed  it 
unnecessary  to  wait  for  a  formal  introduction,  and  especially  as  his 
remarks  had  been  so  ably  anticipated  by  their  respected  and  vener¬ 
able  chairman,  with  whose  sentiments,  which  his  long  experience, 
and  matured  judgment,  and  sound  Catholic  feeling  had  inspired  him 
to  utter,  he  (the  Bishop)  fully  concurred.  He  entirely  concurred 
with  the  sentiment  that  in  this  country,  when  light  is  diffused  on 
any  question  in  which  justice  and  injustice  are  involved,  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  would  deal  justly,  and  not  oppress  any  portion  of  the 
people  with  injustice.  He  likewise  concurred  with  their  venerable 
chairman  in  the  opinion  that  up  to  this  time  the  question  which 
then  occupied  their  attention  had  not  been  properly  understood  ;  he 
would  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  persons  who  had  declined 
granting  their  reasonable  request,  had  done  so  because  they  had 
not  understood  the  justice  of  their  claims — nay,  further,  when  this 
matter  was  thorouglily  understood,  he  was  satisfied  that  even  the 
gentlemen  connected  with  the  public  schools  would  admit  their 
claim.  He  was  authorized  to  make  this  statement  from  a  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  genius  and  constitution  of  this  nation.  Here  let  but 
their  grievances  be  made  known,  and  every  honest  man,  and  every 
true  American — every  man  who  understands  the  justice  and  fair 
play  of  the  American  constitution — would  be  ready  to  redress  their 
grievances.  [Applause.] 

Passing  from  the  necessity  for  spreading  abroad  the  true  ground 
of  their  claim,  he  would  come  to  the  design  and  intention  of  the 
Legislature  of  this  State  in  granting  a  bounty  for  the  promotion  of 
education.  And  he  would  contend  that  it  was  a  libel  on  the  char¬ 
acter  of  this  great  State  to  suppose  it  was  ever  intended  or  de¬ 
signed  that  the  education  of  the  children  of  the  poor  should  be 
partial  or  injurious  to  some;  and  he  felt  authorized,  also,  from  the 
character  and  professions  of  those  statesmen,  to  say  that  their  in¬ 
tention  was  both  good  and  honest,  that  it  was  prompted  in  good 
faith,  and  with  a  desire  that  every  poor  man’s  child  should  have 
the  benefit  of  this  bounty,  without  any  encroachment  on  any  civil 
privilege  or  religious  right.  [Applause.]  Yet,  notwithstanding 
that  this  was  the  design,  they  saAV  that  intention  had  been  most 
admirably  defeated — that  the  object  was  prevented,  and  that  the 
4 


50 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


matter  had  now  assumed  such  a  form  that,  contrary  to  the  inten¬ 
tions  of  the  Legislature,  Catholics  were  virtually  excluded  from  the 
benefits  of  the  system.  This  they  w'ould  have  an  opportunity  of 
seeing  before  he  had  done.  ISTo  doubt,  the  intention  was  that  the 
money  should  be  expended  to  make  education  general ;  for  every 
enlightened  and  educated  man  was  convinced  that  education  was 
such  a  blessing  that  he  should  not  be  consulting  the  true  interests 
of  the  country,  unless  he  were  disposed  to  foster  the  education  of 
the  young;  but  did  they  think  it  would  be  worthy  an  enlightened 
American  Legislature  to  conceive  such  a  design,  and  to  plan  it  for 
the  jiurpose  of  impairing  the  universal  right  of  conscience  and  its 
liberty  ?  [Applause.] 

The  history  of  the  application  of  this  bounty  of  the  State  had  been 
already  alluded  to.  The  first  principle  was  that  this  bounty  of  the 
State  should  be  apportioned  to  the  difterent  religious  Societies,  that 
they  might  educate  the  children  under  their  charge ;  but  because  one 
peculated  or  perverted  this  bounty  to  iniquitous  purposes,  not  con¬ 
templated  by  the  Legislature,  the  whole  was  put  under  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  school  directors — he  might  not  be  right  in  the  use  of 
terms,  but  they  would  know  what  he  meant — and  they  were  to 
visit  the  schools,  and  one  principle  which  they  were  to  carry  out  was 
to  exclude  sectarianism  utterly  and  entirely ;  and  in  examining  the 
reasons  of  the  Common  Council  for  refusing  to  accede  to  the  claim 
of  Catholics,  they  found  that  this  exclusion  of  sectarianism  was 
thought  the  great  charm  of  the  system,  but  he  should  show  them  that 
it  did  not  exclude  sectarianism,  and  that  its  directors  knew  it  did  not, 
and  that  they  knew  it  operated  injuriously  on  Catholics.  Under  this 
state  of  the  case  they  were  to  set  their  grievances  before  the  commu¬ 
nity — the  grievance  of  being  obliged  to  contribute  to  the  support 
of  a  system  from  which  they  could  derive  no  benefit,  but  which  was 
perverted  as  an  instrument  to  destroy  their  religion  in  the  minds  of 
the  children  under  the  pretence  of  excluding  sectarianism.  But  now, 
to  convince  them  that  the  exclusion  of  sectarianism  was  impossible — 
did  not  those  directors  each  belong  to  some  sect  ?  Did  not  the  gen¬ 
tlemen  putting  the  books  into  the  hands  of  the  children  belong  to 
some  sect?  He  came  to  this  point  that  they  either  belonged  to  some 
sect  or  acted  on  the  principles  of  deism ;  and,  though  this  system 
had  now  no  name  under  a  religious  head,  it  was  either  deism  or  sec¬ 
tarianism.  If  it  were  said  that  it  was  not  sectarianism,  he  wanted  to 
know  Avhat  was  Christianity ;  for  if  they  excluded  all  sects,  they  ex¬ 
cluded  all  Christianity.  Where  are  the  Christians  ?  Take  away  Ca¬ 
tholics,  and  Baptists,  and  Methodists,  and  Presbyterians  and  some 
others — and  tliey  were  all  sects — take  away  all  the  sects,  and  they 
had  no  more  Christianity  in  the  land.  Nor  could  they  exclude  secta¬ 
rianism  ?  And  if  they  did,  what  remained  but  deism  ?  There  was 
no  alternative.  It  was  as  plain  as  that  two  and  two  are  four.  And 
did  they  suppose  that  this  community  which  belonged  to  one  or  the 
other  sect  would  subscribe  to  a  system  Avhich  in  its  essence  was  anti- 
Christian?  Exclude  sectarianism!  and  in  a  country,  too,  which 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


51 


prides  itself  on  its  Christianity !  He  should  like  to  know,  then,  what 
sect  would  receive  the  greatest  benefit  from  this  system  ?  why,  the 
sect  that  excluded  sectarianism — the  “  Common  School  Sect,”  for  it 
ought  to  have  a  name.  [Laughter.]  How  let  them  examine  for  a 
moment  the  school-books  used  under  this  system,  a  couple  of  which 
had  fallen  into  his  hands,  and  they  had  here  a  reading  lesson  on  the 
'‘^Character  of  Martin  Luther.''''  Now,  no  doubt  Martin  Luther  had  a 
character — [laughter] — but  people  draw  it  very  differently.  Here  it 
was  drawn  by  one  of  hi-s  admirers — Catholics,  thanks  to  the  education 
which  they  gave  him,  may  think  highly  of  his  talents,  but  they  have 
not  much  admiration  of  his  virtues — here  was  a  chapter  on  his  char¬ 
acter  drawn  by  Hr.  Robertson,  a  Presbyterian !  But  would  Catho¬ 
lics  wishing  to  educate  their  children  put  Hr.  Robertson’s  character 
of  him  into  their  hands  ?  Here  he  was  made  out  one  of  the  greatest 
men  that  ever  lived.  [Laughter.]  But  let  that  pass.  Next  they 
had  a  chapter  on  the  '"'■Execution  of  Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  A 
And  was  that  by  a  Roman  Catholic  ?  Oh  no ;  they  would  not  trust 
a  lesson  by  a  Roman  Catholic  into  the  school ;  but  they  introduced 
this  chapter  written  by  Hume,  the  historian  whose  veracity  they  all 
could  aiipreciate.  [Laughter.]  Another  chapter  was  entitled  the 
‘•'■Character  of  the  Great  Founder  of  Christianity.''''  What  a  name!  The 
Great  Founder  of  Christianity!  instead  of  snying  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  And  who  is  this  from  ?  Hr.  Beattie,  a  Scotch  Presbyterian  ! 
But  did  they  want  their  children  to  be  taught  by  him  ?  The  next 
chapter  was  entitled  '■'■The  Spirit  and  Laws  of  Christianity  sxiperior 
to  those  of  any  other  religion.’’’'  And  this  was  a  lesson  for  children  ! 
And  who  was  this  from?  Hr.  Be.attie  again.  Now  might  they 
not  as  well  seclect  lessons  for  children  from  the  life  of  Sir  Thomas 
Moore,  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  who  gave  his  head  to 
the  block  rather  than  sacrifice  his  religion ;  or  from  those  glorious 
annals  of  patriotism  which  show  how  Catholic  bishops  and  barons 
wrung  from  a  king  that  charter  which  was  now  perverted  against 
them.  [Applause.]  But  Catholics  did  not  want  their  children  to  be 
educated  by  the  conductors  of  this  Common  School  System,  whose 
intentions  might  possibly  be  good,  though  Catholics  believed  them 
to  be  mistaken,  at  least.  The  anxiety  betrayed  to  get  Catholics  to 
these  schools,  was  proof  in  itself  that  there  was  something  in  the  sys¬ 
tem  that  Catholics  could  not  agree  to.  Need  he  go  further?  If  it 
were  necessary  he  could  appeal  to  that  Church  and  to  others  for  proofs 
of  the  sacrifices  they  (the  Catholics)  had  made  for  the  preparation 
of  a  place  for  the  education  of  their  children  free  from  the  poisonous 
infection  of  those  Common  Schools.  What  induced  them  to  provide 
some  shelter  like  this,  in  which  they  were  now  assembled  for  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  their  children,  but  that  they  deemed  it  a  blessing  to  give 
good  instruction  to  their  children  instead  of  that  poison  which  would 
pervert  their  minds  from  the  faith  which  they  reverenced,  and  which 
they  had  received  from  their  fathers  ? 

But  here  was  another  book  entitled,  “  Lessons  for  Schools,  taken 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  the  Words  of  the  Text,  without  Note  or 


/ 


62  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 

Comment.”  But  when  did  Catholics  allow  the  Scriptures  to  he  given 
to  children  that  they  might  be  learnt,  “  Without  N ote  or  Comment,” 
admitting  even  that  these  were  the  true  Scriptures?  and  he  asked  if 
this  was  not  a  direct  interference  with  the  religion  of  Catholics,  and 
if  so,  why  should  they  tolerate  it  if  they  had  the  pow  er  to  obtain  re¬ 
dress,  or  even  to  appeal  against  it.  If  he  had  access  to  the  libraries 
of  these  Common  Schools  he  should  find  them  stuffed  full  of  books 
that  were  obnoxious  to  Catholics  and  to  their  feelings ;  but,  as  these 
books  were  now  being  called  in,  it  w^as  very  difficult  to  get  them, 
though  not  long  since  any  child  might  have  them  gratis,  and  he 
should  therefore  call  their  attention  to  a  quotation  from  a  recent 
publication  on  these  books  by  a  writer  who  Avas  well  acquainted 
with  the  subject : 

“  In  each  of  the  Public  Schools  there  is  established  a  library,  to  which  the  more 
advanced  scholars  have  access — and  what  do  we  find  there  ?  ‘  Martin  Luther  ’  and 
‘  An  Irish  Heart.’  The  latter  is  addressed  to  the  ‘  Irish  Protestant  Association  ’  of 
the  city  of  Boston.” 

Not  to  Boston  alone,  but  to  its  essence  and  spirit — the 

“  ‘  Protestant  Association  ’  of  the  city  of  Boston,  and  is  a  libel  upon  the  Catholics, 
and  an  insult  to  the  Irish.  From  the  preface  I  extract  the  following :  ‘  The  emi¬ 
gration  from  Ireland  to  America,  of  annually  increasing  numbers,  extremely  needy, 
and  in  many  cases  drunken  and  depraved,  has  become  a  subject  for  grave  and  fear¬ 
ful  reflection.  Should  this  influx  continue  for  a  few  years  more,  in  the  same  ratio 
of  increase  which  has  existed  for  a  few  years  past ;  should  this  imposing  subject 
continue  to  be  thought  unworthy  of  legislative  provision,  and  should  the  materials 
of  this  oppressive  influx  continue  to  be  the  same,  instead  of  an  asylum  our  country 
might  be  appropriately  styled  the  common  sewer  of  Ireland.’  From  page  24  I 
copy  the  following  verbatim:  ‘As  for  old  Phelim  Maghee,  he  was  of  no  particular 
'  religion.’  ” 

Well,  then  he  belonged  to  this  Common  School  System,  said 
the  Bishop.  [Laughter.] 

“  ‘  When  Phelim  had  laid  up  a  good  stock  of  sins,  he  now  and  then  went  over  to 
Killarney,  of  a  Sabbath  morning,  and  got  relaaf  by  conjissing  them  out  o’  the  way, 
as  he  used  to  express  it,  and  sealed  his  soul  up  with  a  wafer,  and  returned  quite 
invigorated  for  the  perpetration  of  new  offences.’  ” 

There  is  a  lesson  for  your  children  in  a  school  system  Avhich  pro¬ 
fesses  the  exclusion  of  all  sectarianism ! 

Again,  on  page  120,  when  speaking  of  intemperance,  we  find  the 
following : 

“  ‘  It  is  more  probably,  however,  a  part  of  the  papal  system.’  ” 

Father  Mathew,  for  instance. 

"  ‘  For,  when  drunkenness  shall  have  been  done  away,  and  with  it  that  just,  re¬ 
lative  proportion  of  all  indolence,  ignorance,  crime,  misery,  and  superstition,  of 
which  it  is  the  putative  parent,  then,  truly,  a  much  smaller  portion  of  mankind 
may  be  expected  to  follow  the  dark  lantern  of  the  Romish  religion,’  ” 

And  Ave  read  this  while  we  see  Father  Mathew  going  abroad,  and 
hundreds  of  Protestants  joining  Father  Mathew.  ETe  spoke  of  this 
as  one  of  the  books  of  learning  which  Avere  unfit  to  be  introduced 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOIf. 


63 


into  schools  from  n  hicli  all  sectarianism  was  professed  to  be  ex¬ 
cluded.  But  it  goes  on : 

“  ‘  That  religion  is  most  likely  to  find  professors  among  the  frivolous  and  the 
■wicked,  which  by  a  species  of  ecclesiastical  legerdemain  can  persuade  the  sinner 
that  he  is  going  to  heaven  when  he  is  going  directly  to  heU.  By  a  refined  and 
complicated  system  of  Jesuitry  and  prelatical  juggling  — 

That,  I  supjjose,  is  a  hint  for  me — 

“  ‘  the  papal  see  has  obtained  its  present  extensive  influence  through  the  world.’  ” 

Now  he  would  leave  it  to  themselves  whether  that  system,  which 
professed  to  exclude  all  sectarianism,  and  yet  adopted  books  like 
these,  would  stand  the  test  of  examination  before  an  enlightened 
community ;  he  wished  to  know  how  any  gentleman  could  stand  up 
before  the  Common  Council  and  say  that  in  it  there  was  no  secta¬ 
rianism  ;  he  wanted  to  know  how  these  books  could  be  defended  , 
and  he  wished  to  know  on  what  ground  any  gentleman  who  re¬ 
ported  on  the  part  of  the  Common  Council  could  have  justified 
the  refusal  of  the  claims  of  Catholics,  with  such  truths  as  these 
before  him. 

But,  passing  from  this  state  of  the  case,  he  would  call  their  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  disadvantages  under  which  Catholics  labored  by  the 
operation  of  this  system.  And  first,  though  not  the  greatest,  yet 
what  in  a  country  like  this  must  be  deemed  unconstitutional,  was 
taxation  for  the  support  of  a  system  by  -which  they  were  not  ben¬ 
efited.  It  was  a  great  grievance  to  take  the  money  of  Catholics  for 
that  from  which  no  benefit  was  realized.  But  the  next  objection 
was,  its  inequality.  They  found  a  system  supported  by  the  commu¬ 
nity  in  general  w'hich  gave  instruction  to  the  children  of  their 
neighbor,  who  knew  not  or  cared  not  how  it  operated  on  the  reli¬ 
gious  training  of  his  child  ;  while  the  Catholic  who  did  care  for  the 
interests  of  his  child’s  religious  principles  could  not,  for  that  reason, 
conscientiously  partake  of  its  advantages.  But  its  inequality  was 
equaled  by  its  injustice :  for  why  were  they  taxed  for  such  a  sys¬ 
tem,  when  that  system  is  so  perverted  as  to  make  it  their  duty  to 
relinquish  its  benefits,  rather  than  sacrifice  that  which  was  of  greater 
importance.  The  next  fact  w'as,  the  operation  of  this  system  on 
their  children  ;  and  he  asked  them  to  judge  for  themselves,  from  the 
specimens  they  have  had,  what  must  be  the  inevitable  effect  on  their 
children.  But  this  was  not  all ;  for  after  submitting  to  taxation  for 
this  system,  they  were  obliged  to  tax  themselves  anew,  as  well  as 
their  means  would  permit,  to  give  their  children  an  education  that 
would  not  compromise  their  religious  faith.  Now,  if  he  had  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  address  the  gentlemen  more  intimately  mixed  up  with  the 
Common  School  System,  he  would  desire  them  to  bring  their  better 
feelings  to  contemplate  the  scene  in  this  place  when  the  children  of 
the  poor  came  there,  and  not  only  the  children  but  their  teachers, 
who  were  wilimg  to  sacrifice  health  and  life  that  they  might  impart 
instruction  to  their  minds ;  he  would  bring  them  here  and  ask  them 
to  look  upon  the  spectacle;  he  wmuld  ask  them,  also,  if  it  were  just 


54 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


that  they  should  be  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  an  education  -vvliich 
the  money  of  their  parents  contributed  to  provide ;  he  would  ask 
them  if  it  were  just  that  these  children  should  come  here  with  bare 
feet,  during  inclement  weather — and  why  bare  feet?  because  the 
money  had  been  expended  in  books,  which  should  have  purchased 
them  shoes.  The  Legislature  did  not  intend  that  they  should  be 
thus  excluded  from  the  benefits  of  this  system;  nor  yet  that  the 
children  of  the  poor  emigrant  should  not  participate  in  it,  for  they 
are  poor,  and  for  the  poor  in  an  especial  manner  was  it  intended, 
that  they  might  become  good  citizens.  They,  then,  were  the  victims 
of  a  system  which  was  so  perverted  that  they  could  not,  without 
sacrificing  their  consciences,  send  their  children  to  participate  in  its 
benefits,  for  which  they  had,  in  common  with  other  citizens,  sub¬ 
scribed  the  funds. 

Now,  with  this  outline  of  the  case,  which  he  should  be  glad  to 
see  in  print  and  sent  abroad  to  justify  their  course,  he  came  to  the 
remedy ;  for  he  did  not  suppose  they  would  present  themselves  to 
the  constituted  authorities  and  demand  this  money,  unless  they  could 
show  it  was  right.  They  did  not  ask  a  favor;  but,  according  to 
sound  judgment,  ^public  right,  to  which  they  were  entitled.  Nor 
was  it  expedient  that  those  in  power  shoukl  grant  that  ivhich  the 
Catholics  demanded,  until  they  had  shown  them  some  good  and 
sound  reason,  and  its  justice  and  propriety  ;  and,  therefore,  he  was 
glad  that  their  grievances  were  laid  before  the  wdiole  land  and  were 
not  confined  to  that  room.  They  must  seize  the  public  attention, 
and  if  their  just  claim  was  still  denied,  then  let  it  be  branded  on  the 
flag  of  America  that  Catholics  were  denied  and  deprived  of  equal 
rights.  [Applause.]  It  appeared,  from  the  histoiy  of  their  pro¬ 
ceedings  before  his  arrival,  that  difficulties  had  been  throwm  in  their 
way  most  inexpediently,  most  injudiciously,  and  he  might  use  a 
harsher  expression  still  in  respect  to  the  sentiments  put  forth  in 
relation  to  their  agitation  against  the  abominable  system  which  ex¬ 
cludes  all  Christianity,  but  does  no  good.  That  anybody  calling 
himself  a  Catholic  could  have  used  such  language  was  indeed  sur- 
])rising ;  and  they  could  only  suppose  that  such  an  individual  did 
not  know  his  religion  or  wdiat  this  Common  School  System  was. 
But  let  that  pass.  There  had  been  another  difficulty — that  those  to 
Avliom  the  law  entrusted  the  disposition  of  this  money  Avere  not  the 
persons  by  vdiom  it  was  originally  recommended.  It  might  happen, 
in  some  cases,  that  those  not  in  power  should  be  ready  to  recom¬ 
mend  a  measure  with  the  hope  that  they  might  embarrass  others. 
Now,  in  matters  of  this  kind,  reflecting  men  would  not  regret  a 
benefit  because  those  recommended  it  who  were  not  usually  of  their 
own  way  of  thinking.  It  reminded  him  of  a  man  who  should  be 
without  his  breakfast  till  about  eleven  o’clock,  and  is  then  recom¬ 
mended  by  his  enemy  to  take  it ;  but,  says  another,  “  You  know  I 
have  eA"er  been  your  friend,  while  he  has  been  your  enemy,  and  I 
recommend  you  to  wait.”  After  listening  to  both  advisers,  the  man 
says  :  “  In  the  first  place,  have  I  the  right  to  my  breakfast  ?  If  so, 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


55 


it  is  no  matter  who  recommends  it.  It  is  not  because  this  man  or 
tliat  man  recommends  it,  but  because  I  have  the  right  to  it,  that  I 
will  take  it.  In  addition,  it  is  near  twelve  o’clock,  and  I  feel  hun¬ 
gry  ;  and  no  doubt,  after  taking  it,  I  shall  feel  better.  Indepen¬ 
dently,  then,  of  your  advice — and  you  both  wish  me  well — I  have 
reasons  of  my  own  for  eating  my  breakfast,  with  which  I  hope  you 
will  be  satisfied.”  And  so  it  was  on  this  Common  School  Question. 

.It  was  very  silly  to  bring  such  reasons  here  as  had  been  stated,  and 
he  hoped  they  were  now  excluded. 

He  feared  he  was  taxing  their  patience  and  employing  the  time 
that  would  be  more  usefully  employed  by  others,  and  therefore  he 
would  conclude  with  the  remark,  that  they  must  bear  in  mind  they 
were  not  to  accomplish  this  work  in  a  day.  They  would  have  to 
speak  to  those  by  whom  they  expected  justice  to  be  done  them; 
they  would  have  to  diffuse  light,  for  there  were  in  the  country 
public  men  of  high  honor  and  good  feeling  of  all  parties — men  who 
really  wished  to  be  just ;  and  if  others  were  mere  trading  politi¬ 
cians,  he  hoped  they  would  be  mindful  of  that  old  adage,  which 
was  as  true  here  as  elsewhere,  “  Honesty  is  the  best  policy  and 
if  they  wanted  to  be  successful  politicians,  their  course  was  to  be 
honest  politicians.  He  was  aAvare  that  even  Avhere  politicians  were 
not  honest,  from  Maine  to  Georgia,  their  policy  was  to  appear  so  : 
but  there  were  men  independent  of  this  class  that  Avere  men  of  gen¬ 
erous  minds  and  pure  motives,  AA'ho  sympathized  with  the  people 
and  Avere  Avatchful  of  the  interests  of  the  country,  and  who  would 
grant  the  justice  to  Avhich  Catholics  Avere  entitled,  and  drive  out 
from  this  system  that  sectarianism  Avhich  its  professed  friends  say 
does  not  exist  in  it.  In  order,  then,  to  proceed  in  the  Avay  whicli 
cases  of  the  kind  require,  he  would  suggest  the  adoption  of  the  fol¬ 
lowing  preamble  and  resolutions ; 

Whereas^  The  Avisdom  and  liberality  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State 
did  provide,  at  the  public  expense,  for  the  education  of  the  poor 
children  of  the  State,  Avithout  injury  or  detriment  to  the  civil  and 
religious  rights  A’ested  in  their  parents  or  guardians  by  the  laAvs  of 
nature  and  of  the  land  :  And,  whereas.  Catholics  contribute  and  ha\'e 
ahvays  contributed  their  proportion  to  the  funds  from  which  that 
system  is  supported  :  And,  whereas,  the  administration  of  that  system, 
as  noAA'  conducted,  is  such  that  the  parents  or  guardians  of  Catholic 
children  cannot  alloAV  them  to  frequent  such  schools  Avithout  doing 
violence  to  those  rights  of  conscience  Avhich  the  Constitution  secures 
equal  and  inviolable  to  all  citizens,  viz. ;  They  cannot  alloAV  their 
children  to  be  brought  up  under  a  system  AvLich  proposes  to  shut 
the  door  against  Christianity,  under  the  pretext  of  excluding  secta¬ 
rianism,  and  Avhich  yet  has  not  the  merit  of  being  true  to  its  bad 
promise :  And,  whereas.  Catholics  Avho  are  the  least  wealthy  and 
most  in  need  of  the  education  intended  by  the  bounty  of  the  State, 
are  thus  cut  off  from  tlie  benefit  of  funds  to  AALich  they  are  obliged 
to  conti’ibute,  and  constrained  either  to  contribute  neAV  funds  for 
the  purposes  of  education  among  themselves,  or  else  to  see  their 


I 


56  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 

children  brought  up  under  a  system  of  free-thinking  and  practical 
irreligion,  or  else  see  them  left  to  that  ignorance  which  they  dread, 
and  which  it  was  the  benevolent  and  wise  intention  of  the  Legisla¬ 
ture  to  remove.  Therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  operation  of  the  Common  School  System,  as 
the  same  is  now  administered,  is  a  violation  of  our  civil  and  reli¬ 
gious  rights. 

2.  Resolved,  That  we  should  not  be  worthy  of  our  proud  distinc¬ 
tion  as  Americans  and  American  citizens,  if  we  did  not  resist  such 
invasion  by  every  lawful  means  in  our  power. 

3.  Resolved,  That  in  seeking  the  redress  of  our  grievances,  we 
have  confidence  in  our  rulers,  more  especially  as  by  granting  that 
redress  they  will  but  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  Constitution, 
which  secures  equal  civil  and  religious  rights  to  all. 

4.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  eight  be  appointed  to  prepare 
and  report  an  address  to  the  Catholic  community  and  the  public  at 
large,  on  the  injustice  which  is  done  to  the  Catholics,  in  their  civil 
and  religious  rights  by  the  present  operation  of  the  Common  School 
System. 

5.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  to  prepare 
a  report  on  the  public  moneys  Avhich  have  been  expended  by  the 
bounty  of  this  State  for  education,  both  in  Colleges  and  in  Common 
Schools,  to  which  Catholics  have  contributed  their  proportion  of 
taxes  like  other  citizens,  but  from  which  they  have  never  received 
any  benefit. 

The  resolutions  having  been  unanimously  adopted  collectively, 
the  committees  designated  in  the  resolutions  were  then  appointed 
by  the  chairman,  as  follows:  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes,  James  W. 
McKeon,  Thomas  O’Connor,  Dr.  Sweeney,  James  W.  White,  James 
Kelley,  Gregory  Dillon,  B.  O’Connoiq  John  McLoughlin :  C.  F. 
Grim,  James  W.  McKeon. 


ADDRESS 

OF  THE  CATHOLICS  TO  THEIR  FELLOW  CITIZENS  OF  THE 
CITY  AND  STATE  OP  NEW  YORK. 


Speech,  of  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes. 

A  GENERAL  meeting  of  the  Catholics  of  Kew  York  was  held  in 
the  basement  of  St.  .James’  Church,  James  street,  on  Monday, 
August  10,  1840,  on  the  subject  of  Common  School  Education,  and- 
the  claim  of  the  Catholics  to  a  portion  of  the  Common  School  Fund. 
The  meeting  was  very  numerously  attended.  Thomas  O’Connor, 
Esq.,  was  again  called  to  the  chair,  and  the  secretaries  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  meetings  were  also  re-elected. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


57 


Tlie  Right  Reverend  Bishop  Hughes,  having  entered  the  room 
accompanied  by  a  numerous  body  of  the  clergy,  was  received  with 
enthusiastic  plaudits.  He  then,  as  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  last  meeting  to  prepare  an  address  to  the  public 
on  the  subject  which  those  meetings  were  convened  to  discuss,  came 
forward  and  said,  the  object  they  had  in  view,  in  drafting  and 
adopting  a  report,  was  that  the  public  at  large  might  be  informed 
of  the  nature  of  their  pretensions,  and  of  the  grievances  of  which 
they  complained,  in  order  that  if  there  'were  in  the  public  a  sympa¬ 
thetic  response  to  their  cry  for  justice,  it  might  come  forth.  For 
himself  he  had  but  little  doubt  of  the  issue,  for  he  had  great  con¬ 
fidence  in  the  public  justice.  And  whatever  might  be  the  conduct 
of  the  editors  of  the  daily  journals,  and  of  others  who  were  but  ob¬ 
scurely  informed,  or  who  but  darkly  understood  the  nature  of  their 
position,  he  still  hoped  that  when  they  comprehended  thoroughly 
the  ground  on  which  Catholics  stood,  they  would  not  persevere  in 
the  course  of  which  their  venerable  chairman  so  justly  complained. 
[Applause.]  With  the  permission  of  the  meeting,  he  would  then 
read  the  draft  of  the  report  which  was  about  to  be  submitted  to 
them.  The  Right  Reverend  Prelate  then  read  the  following  address, 
which  was  received  with  responsive  cheers  throughout : 

ADDRESS 

Of  the  Roman  Catholics,  to  their  Fellow  Citizens  of  the  City  and  State 

I 

of  New  York. 

Fellow  Citizens  : 

We,  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  City  of  Hew  York,  feeling  that 
both  our  civil  and  religious  rights  are  abridged  and  injuriously 
alfected  by  tbe  operation  of  the  Common  School  System,  and  by 
the  construction  which  the  Common  Council  have  lately  put  on  the 
laws  authorizing  that  system,  beg  leave  to  state  our  grievances,  with 
the  deepest  confidence  in  the  justice  of  the  American  character; 
that  if  our  complaints  are  well  founded,  you  will  assist  us  in  obtain¬ 
ing  the  redress  to  which  we  are  entitled — if  they  are  not  well 
founded,  we  are  ready  to  abandon  them. 

We  are  Americans  and  American  citizens.  If  some  of  us  are 
foreigners,  it  is  only  by  the  accident  of  birth.  As  citizens,  our  am¬ 
bition  is  to  be  Americans — and  if  we  cannot  be  so  by  birth,  we  are 
so  by  choice  and  preference,  which  we  deem  an  equal  evidence  of 
our  affection  and  attachment  to  the  Laws  and  Constitution  of  the 
country.  But  our  children,  for  whose  rights  as  well  as  our  own  we 
contend  in  this  matter,  are  Americans  by  nativity.  So  that  we  are 
either,  like  yourselves,  natives  of  the  soil,  or,  like  your  fathers  from 
the  Eastern  world,  have  become  Americans  under  the  sanction  of 
the  Constitution,  by  the' birth  right  of  selection  and  preference. 

We  hold,  therefore,  the  same  idea  of  our  rights  that  you  hold  of 


68 


AECHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


yours.  We  wish  not  to  diminish  yours,  hut  only  to  secure  and 
enjoy  our  own.  Neither  have  we  the  slightest  suspicion  that  you 
would  wish  us  to  be  deprived  of  any  privilege,  which  you  claim  for 
yourselves.  If  then  we  have  sufiered  by  the  operation  of  the 
Common  School  System  in  the  City  of  New  York,  it  is  to  be  im¬ 
puted  rather  to  our  own  supineness,  than  to  any  wish  on  your  part 
that  we  should  be  aggrieved. 

The  intention  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State  in  appropriating 
jjublic  funds  for  the  jjurposes  of  popular  schools,  must  have  been 
(whatever  construction  the  lawyers  of  the  Common  Council  put  upon 
it)  to  diffuse  the  blessings  of  education  among  the  people,  without 
encroachment  on  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  the  citizens.  It 
was,  it  must  have  been,  to  have  implanted  in  the  minds  of  youth, 
principles  of  knowledge  and  virtue,  which  would  secure  to  the  State 
a  future  population  of  enlightened  and  virtuous,  instead  of  ignorant 
and  vicious  members. 

This  was  certainly  their  general  intention,  and  no  other  would 
have  justified  their  bountiful  appropriation  of  the  public  funds.  But 
in  carrying  out  the  measure,  this  patriotic  and  wise  intention  has 
been  lost  sight  of ;  and  in  the  City  of  New  York,  at  least,  under  the 
late  arbitrary  determination  of  the  present  Common  Council,  such 
intention  of  the  legislature  is  not  only  disregarded,  but  the  high 
public  ends  to  which  it  was  directed,  are  manifestly  being  defeated. 
Here  knowledge,  according  to  the  late  decision,  mere  secular  knowl¬ 
edge,  is  what  w'e  are  to  understand  by  education,  in  the  sense  of  the 
legislature  of  New  York.  And  if  you  slrould  allow  the  smallest  ray 
of  religion  to  enter  the  school-room  ;  if  you  should  teach  the  chil¬ 
dren  that  there  is  an  eye  that  sees  every  wicked  thought,  that  there 
is  a  God,  a  state  of  rewards  and  punishment  beyond  this  life  ;  then, 
according  to  the  decision  of  the  Common  Council,  you  forfeit  all 
claim  to  the  boimty  of  the  State,  although  your  scholars  should  have 
become  as  learned  as  Newton,  or  wise  as  Socrates.  Is  then,  we 
would  ask  you,  fellow  citizens,  a  practical  rejection  of  the  Christian 
religion  in  all  its  forms,  and  without  the  substitution  of  any  other, 
the  basis  on  which  you  would  form  the  principles  and  character  of 
the  future  citizens  of  this  great  Commonwealth  ?  Are  the  meek 
lessons  of  religion  and  virtue,  which  jiass  from  the  mother’s  lips  into 
the  heart  of  her  child,  to  be  chilled  and  frozen  by  icy  contact  with 
a  system  of  education  thus  interpreted  ? 

Is  enlightened  villainy  so  precious  in  the  public  eye,  that  science 
is  to  be  cultivated  whilst  virtue  is  neglected,  and  religion,  its  only 
adequate  groundwork,  is  formally  and  authoritatively  proscribed  ? 
Is  it  your  wish  that  vice  should  thus  be  elevated  from  its  low  and 
natural  companionship  with  ignorance,  and  be  married  to  knowledge 
imparted  at  the  public  expense  ? 

AYe  do  not  say  that  even  the  Common  Council  profess  to  require 
that  the  Christian  religion  should  be  excluded  from  the  Common 
Schools.  They  only  contend  that  the  inculcation  of  each  or  any  of 
its  doctrines  would  be  sectarianism,  and  thus  lest  sectarianism 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


59 


should  be  admitted  Chi'istianity  is  siibstantially  excluded.  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  this  country  is  made  up  of  the  different  creeds  of  the  vari¬ 
ous  denominations,  and  since  all  these  creeds  are  proscribed,  the 
Christian  religion  necessarily  is  banished  from  the  hall  of  public  edu¬ 
cation. 

The  objections  which  we  have  thus  far  stated,  fellpw  citizens, 
ought  to  appear  to  you,  in  our  opinion,  as  strong  to  you  as  they  do 
to  us.  For  though  we  may  differ  in  our  detinition  of  the  religion 
of  Christ,  still  we  all  generally  profess  to  believe,  to  revere  it,  as  the 
foundation  of  moral  virtue  and  of  social  happiness.  Now  we  know 
of  no  fixed  principle  of  infidelity,  except  in  the  negation  of  the 
Christian  religion  ?  The  adherents  of  this  principle  may  difter  in 
other  points  of  skepticism,  but  in  rejecting  Christianity  they  are 
united.  Their  coufession  of  faith  is  a  belief  in  the  negative  of  Chris¬ 
tianity — but  they  reject  it  in  toto — whilst  the  Common  School  rejects 
it  only  in  all  its  several  parts,  under  the  name  of  Sectarianism. 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  Public  School  System  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  is  entirely  favorable  to  the  sectarianism  of  infi¬ 
delity,  and  opposed  only  to  that  of  positive  Christianity.  And  is  it 
your  wish,  fellow  citizens,  is  it  your  wish  more  than  ours,  that  infi¬ 
delity  should  have  a  predominancy  and  advantages,  in  the  public 
schools,  which  are  denied  to  Christianity  ?  Is  it  your  wish  that  your 
children  should  be  brought  up  under  a  system  of  education  so 
called,  which  shall  detach  them  from  the  Christian  belief  which  you 
profess,  Avhatever  it  may  be — and  prepare  them  for  initiation  into 
the  mysteries  of  Fanny  Wrightism,  or  any  other  scheme  of  infidelity 
which  may  come  in  their  way  ?  Are  you  willing  that  your  chil¬ 
dren,  educated  at  your  expense,  shall  be  educated  on  a  principle 
antagonist  to  the  Christian  religion  ?  that  you  shall  have  the  toil  and 
labor  of  cultivating  the  ground,  and  sowing  the  seed,  in  order  that 
infidelity  may  reap  the  harvest. 

With  us  it  is  matter  of  surprise  that  conscientious  persons  of  all 
Christian  denominations  have  not  been  struck  with  this  bad  feature 
of  the  system  as  understood  by  the  Common  Council.  A  new  sec¬ 
tarianism  antagonist  to  all  Christian  sects  has  been  generated  in,  not 
the  common  schools,  as  the  State  originally  understood  the  term,  but 
in  the  public  schools  of  the  Public  school  Society ;  this  new  secta¬ 
rianism  is  adopted  by  the  Common  Council  of  the  City,  and  is  sup¬ 
ported,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others^  at  the  public  expense.  Have 
the  conscientious  Methodists,  Ejnscopalians,  Baptists,  Lutherans, 
and  others,  no  scruples  of  conscience  at  seeing  their  children,  and 
the  children  of  their  poor  brought  up  under  this  new  sectarianism  ? 
It  is  not  for  us  to  say,  but  for  ourselves  we  can  speak.  And  we  can¬ 
not  be  parties  to  such  a  system,  except  by  legal  compulsion  and 
against  conscience. 

Let  us  not  be  mistaken.  We  do  not  deny  to  infidels  for  unbelief 
any  rights  to  Avhich  any  other  citizen  is  entitled. 

But  we  hold  that  the  Common  School  System  as  it  has  been  lately 
interpreted  by  the  Common  Council  of  the  City,  necessarily  trans- 


60 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


fers  to  the  interest  of  infidel  sectarianism,  the  advantages  which  are 
denied  to  Christian  sectarianism  of  every  kind.  Again,  let  us  not 
be  misunderstood.  We  are  opposed  to  the  admission  of  sectarian¬ 
ism  of  any  and  of  every  kind,  whether  Christian  or  anti-Christian 
in  the  schools  that  are  supported  by  the  State. 

But  we  hold  also  that,  as  far  as  the  Commonwealth  is  concerned 
in  the  character  of  her  future  citizens,  even  the  least  perfect  religion 
of  Christian  sectarianism  would  be  better  than  no  religion  at  all. 
And  we  hold  that  of  all  bad  uses  to  which  the  public  money  can  be 
jierverted,  among  the  worst  wmuld  be  the  expending  of  it,  in  the 
shape  of  a  bounty  to  education,  for  the  spread  and  propogation  of 
sectarian  infidelity.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  suppose  that  either  the 
Legislature,  Common  Council  or  School  Commissioners,  ever  intend¬ 
ed  such  perversion.  We  hold,  nevertheless,  that  the  consequence 
which  we  have  pointed  out  and  the  apprehension  of  which  is  one 
of  the  reasons  wLy  the  Roman  Catholics  cannot  conscientiously  par¬ 
ticipate  in  the  benefits  of  these  schools,  is  necessary  and  inevitable. 

The  education  which  each  denomination  might  under  proper  re¬ 
straints  and  viligance  give  to  its  oxon  poox',  has  passed  and  become  a 
monopoly  in  the  hands  of  “The  Public  School  Society  of  New 
York.”  That  corporation  is  in  high  and  almost  exclusive  standing 
with  the  Common  Council. 

Now,  the  education  which  is  imparted  on  the  principles  of  the 
schools  of  that  society,  is,  in  our  decided  opinion,  calculated  from 
its  defectiveness  to  disappoint  the  benevolent  hope  of  legislative 
bounty,  and  to  make  bad  and  dangerous  citizens.  We  all  know  that 
the  belief  of  another  world  is  ultimately  at  the  base  of  all  that  is 
just  and  sacred  in  this.  The  love  of  God — the  hope  of  future  re¬ 
wards — the  dread  of  future  punishment — one  or  all  of  these  consti¬ 
tute  and  must  be  the  foundation  of  conscience  in  the  breast  of  every 
man. 

When  neither  of  them  exists,  conscience  is  but  an  idle  word.  Re¬ 
ligion  is  but  the  development  of  these  important  truths,  governing 
man  by  their  internal  influence  on  his  passions  and  aflections,  regu¬ 
lating  the  order  of  his  duties,  to  God,  to  his  country,  to  his  neigh¬ 
bor  and  himself.  If  they  have  their  full  force  he  will  be  a  man  of 
justice,  probity  and  truth.  And  in  proportion  as  such  men  are  nu¬ 
merous  in  the  Commonwealth,  in  the  same  proportion  wall  the  State 
enjoy  security  and  happiness  from  within — honor  and  high  estima¬ 
tion  from  Avithout. 

Now  holding  these  truths  as  indisputable,  we  ask  you,  fellow  citi¬ 
zens,  to  say  whether  this,  not  common,  but  Public  School  System, 
as  it  is  now  administered,  under  the  interpretation  of  the  Common 
Council,  is  calculated  to  raise  up  for  your  successors,  in  the  State, 
men  of  this  description  ;  or  rather,  Avhether  it  does  not  promise  you 
men  of  a  difierent  and  dhimetrically  opposite  character  ?  The 
Common  Council  makes  it  a  condition,  an  essential  one  of  those 
schools,  that  religion  shall  not  “  be  taught,  for  this  would  be  sectari¬ 
anism.”  And  thus  the  intellect  is  cultivated,  if  you  please,  but  the 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOSr. 


61 


heart  and  moral  character  are  left  to  their  natural  depravity  and 
wildness.  This  is  not  education ;  and  above  all,  this  is  not  the  edu¬ 
cation  calculated  to  make  good  citizens. 

Education  cultivates  all  the  faculties  of  the  human  soul,  the  will, 
as  well  as  the  understanding  and  memory. 

The  Public  School  System  not  only  does  not  cultivate  the  will 
(for  this  can  hardly  be  done  without  the  aid  of  religion),  but  it  al¬ 
most  eniancij^ates  the  will,  even  in  the  tender  age  of  childhood,  in 
reference  to  the  subject  of  religion  itself.  We  have  found  in  the 
hands  of  our  children  lessons  setting  forth,  in  substance,  that,  after 
all,  humane  feelings  and  actions  are  about  the  best  religion. 

In  these  schools,  you  give  them  knowledge,  without  the  moderat¬ 
ing  principle  which  will  direct  its  use,  or  prevent  its  being  applied 
to  the  worst  of  purposes.  What  principle  do  you  inculcate  that 
will  check  the  lie  that  is  rising  to  their  lips,  or  cause  confusion  on 
their  brow  when  they  have  uttered  it  ?  None.  Religion  could  ac¬ 
complish  this — but  religion  is  excluded.  If  you  tell  them  there  is  a 
God  who  will  punish  them,  the  Athiest  father  who  thinks  himself 
an  honest  man  without  God,  and  who  thinks  his  own  opinions  good 
enough  for  his  child,  will  appeal  to  the  decision  of  the  Common 
Council,  and  show  that  you  violate  the  condition  of  the  grant  in 
favor  of  common  schools,  by  speaking  of  God  or  anything  sectarian. 
What  principles  of  self  resti'aint  are  inculcated  in  this  spurious 
system  of  education,  which  leaves  the  will  of  the  pupil  to  riot  in 
the  f  erceness  of  unrestrained  lusts  ?  “  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way 

in  which  he  should  walk,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from 
it,”  is  the  maxim  of  one  who  judged  of  human  nature  with  more 
than  human  penetration.  But  the  Common  Council  has  reversed  it, 
and  decided  that  the  child  will  train  up  itself,  provided  you  give  it 
knowledge  without  religion. 

Thus  far,  fellow-citizens,  we  have  stated  our  objections  to  the 
present  system  of  common  school  education,  not  as  they  aflect  us 
more  than  any  other  denomination  of  Christians. 

We  have  stated  them  in  view  of  the  bearing  which  that  system  is 
likely  to  have  on  interests  in  ivhich  you  are  concerned  as  much  as, 
or  more,  than  ourselves,  viz. :  religion,  morals,  individual  and  social 
happiness,  and  the  welfare  of  the  State. 

We  believe  it  was  the  warning  voice  of  the  illustrious  Washing¬ 
ton,  among  the  last  solemn  words  of  the  patriot,  breathed  into  the 
ear  of  his  beloved  country,  to  beware  of  the  man  who  would  inculcate 
morality  xoithout  religion. 

■  We  now  come  to  the  statement  of  grievances  which  affect  us  in 
our  civil  and  religious  rights,  as  Roman  Catholics. 

Under  the  guarantee  of  liberty  of  conscience,  we  profess  the  re¬ 
ligion  which  we  believe  to  be  true  and  pleasing  to  God. 

We  inherit  it,  many  of  us,  from  our  persecuted  fathers,  for  we  are 
the  sons  of  martyrs  in  the  cause  of  religious  freedom. 

Our  conscience  obliges  us  to  transmit  it  to  our  children. 

A  brief  experience  of  the  Public  School  System  in  the  city  of  New 


32 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


York  convinced  us  that  we  could  not  discharge  our  conscientious 
duty  to  our  offspring,  if  we  allowed  them  to  be  brought  up  under 
the  influence  of  the  irreligious  principles  on  which  those  schools  are 
conducted,  and  to  some  of  which  we  have  already  alluded.  But 
besides  these,  there  were  other  grounds  of  distrust  and  danger 
which  soon  forced  on  us  the  conclusion  that  the  benefits  of  public 
education  were  not  for  us.  Besides  the  introduction  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  without  note  or  comment,  with  the  prevailing  theory  that 
from  these  even  children  are  to  get  their  notions  of  religion,  contrary 
to  our  principles,  there  were  in  the  class  books  of  those  schools  false 
(as  we  believe)  historical  statements  respecting  the  men  and  things 
of  past  times  calculated  to  fill  the  minds  of  our  children  with  errors 
of  fact,  and  at  the  same  time  to  excite  in  them  prejudice  against  the 
religion  of  their  parents  and  guardians.  These  passages  were  not 
considered  as  sectarian,  inasmuch  as  they  had  been  selected  as  mere 
reading  lessons,  and  were  not  in  favor  of  any  particular  sect,  but 
merely  against  the  Catholics.  We  feel  it  is  unjust  that  such  pas¬ 
sages  should  be  taught  at  all  in  schools,  to  the  siipport  of  which  we 
are  contributors  as  well  as  others.  But  that  such  books  should  be 
put  into  the  hands  of  our  oton  children,  and  that  in  part  at  our  own 
expense,  was  in  our  opinion  unjust,  unnatural,  and  at  all  events  to 
us  intolerable.  Accordingly,  through  very  great  additional  sacri¬ 
fices,  Ave  have  been  obliged  to  provide  schools,  under  our  churches 
and  elscAvhere,  in  which  to  educate  our  children  as  our  conscientious 
duty  required.  This  Ave  haA’e  done  to  the  number  of  some  thousands 
for  several  years  past,  during  all  of  which  time  we  ha\m  been  obliged 
to  pay  taxes  ;  and  Ave  feel  it  unjust  and  oppressive  that  Avhilst  wo 
educate  our  children,  as  Avell  Ave  contend  as  they  would  be  at  the 
public  schools,  we  are  denied  our  portion  of  the  school  fund,  simply 
because  Ave  at  the  same  time  endeavor  to  train  them  up  in  principles 
of  virtue  and  religion.  This  Ave  feel  to  be  unjust  and  unequal.  For 
Ave  pay  taxes  in  proportion  to  our  numbers,  as  other  citizens.  We 
are  supposed  to  be  from  one  hundred  and  fifty  to  two  hundred 
thousand  in  the  State. 

And  although  most  of  us  are  poor,  still  the  poorest  man  amongst 
us  is  obliged  to  pay  taxes,  from  the  sweat  of  his  brow,  in  the  rent 
of  his  room  or  little  tenement.  Is  it  not  then  hard  and  unjust  that 
such  a  man  cannot  haAm  the  benefit  of  education  for  his  child  Avith- 
out  sacrificing  the  rights  of  his  religion  and  conscience  ?  He  sends 
his  child  to  a  school  under  the  protection  of  his  Church,  in  Avdiich 
these  rights  Avill  be  secure.  But  he  has  to  support  this  school  also. 
In  Ireland  he  was  compelled  to  support  a  church  hostile  to  his  re-, 
ligion,  and  here  he  is  compelled  to  supjjort  schools  in  Avhich  his 
religion  fares  but  little  better,  and  to  support  his  OAvn  school  be¬ 
sides. 

Is  this  state  of  things,  felloAv-citizens,  and  especially  Ameficans, 
is  this  state  of  things  worthy  of  you.,  Avorthy  of  our  country,  worthy 
of  our  just  and  glorious  constitution?  Put  yourself  m  the  poor 
man’s  place,  and  say  whether  you  would  not  despise  him  if  he  did 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


63 


not  labor  by  every  lawful  means  to  emancipate  himself  from  this 
bondage.  He  has  to  pay  double  taxation  for  the  education  of  his 
child,  one  to  the  misinterpreted  law  of  the  land,  and  another  to  his 
conscience.  He  sees  his  child  going  to  school  with  perhaps  only  the 
fragment  of  a  worn-out  book,  thinly  clad,  and  its  bare  feet  on  the 
frozen  pavement ;  whereas,  if  he  had  his  rights  he  could  improve 
the  clothing,  he  could  get  better  books,  and  have  his  child  better 
taught  than  it  is  possible  in  actual  circumstances. 

Nothing  can  be  more  false  than  some  statements  of  our  motives, 
which  have  been  put  forth  against  ns. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  we  seek  our  share  of  the  school  fundfi 
for  the  support  and  advance  of  our  religion. 

We  beg  to  assure  you  with  respect  that  we  would  scorn  to  stip- 
port  or  advance  our  religion  at  any  other  than  our  own  expense. 
But  we  are  unwilling  to  pay  taxes  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  our 
religion  in  the  minds  of  our  children,  Tliis  points  out  the  sole 
difference  between  what  we  seek  and  what  some  narrow-minded  or 
misinformed  journals  have  accused  us  of  seeking. 

If  the  public  schools  could  have  been  constituted  on  a  principle 
which  would  have  secured  a  perfect  neutrality  of  influence  on  the 
subject  of  religion,  then  we  should  have  no  reason  to  complain.  But 
this  has  not  been  done,  and  we  respectfully  submit  that  it  is  impos¬ 
sible.  The  cold  indifierence  with  which  it  is  required  that  all  relig¬ 
ion  shall  be  treated  in  those  schools — the  Scriptures  with.out  note  or 
comment — the  selection  of  passages,  as  reading  lessons,  from  Prot¬ 
estants  and  prejudiced  authors,  on  points  in  which  our  creed  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  involved — the  comments  of  the  teacher,  of  which  the 
Commissioners  cannot  be  cognizant  —  the  school  libraries,  stuffed 
with  sectarian  works  against  us — form  against  our  religion  a  combi¬ 
nation  of  influences  prejudicial  to  our  religion,  and  to  whose  action 
it  would  be  criminal  in  us  to  expose  our  children  at  such  an  age. 

Such,  fellow-citizens,  is  a  statement  of  the  reasons  of  our  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  public  schools,  and  the  unjust  and  unequal  grievances  of 
which  we  comjflain. 

You  can  judge  of  our  rights  by  your  own.  You  cannot  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  know  our  religion  ;  many  of  you  have,  no  doubt,  strong 
prejudices  against  it,  which  we  are  fain  to  ascribe  precisely  to  the 
circumstance  of  your  not  having  had  an  opportunity  to  know  it. 

But  notwithstanding  your  iirejudices,  and  your  disapproval  of  our 
faith,  we  have  confidence  in  your  high  principles  of  justice,  under 
the  sanction  of  our  common  constitution,  which  secures  equal  re¬ 
ligious  and  civil  rights  to  all.  Put  yourselves  in  our  situation,  and 
say  whether  it  is  just,  or  equal,  or  constitutional,  that  whereas  we 
are  contributors  to  the  public  fund,  we  shall  be  excluded  from  our 
share  of  benefit  in  their  expenditure,  unless  we  submit  to  the  arbi¬ 
trary  and  irreligious  conditions  of  the  Common  Council,  and  thereby 
violate  our  rights  of  conscience  ? 

Our  religion  is  dear  to  us ;  for  in  the  hearts  of  many  of  us  it  is 
connected  with  the  history  of  our  fathers’  sufferings,  and  our  own. 


64 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Education  is  dear  to  us,  for  the  tyrants  who  wished  to  enslave  onr 
ancestors  and  ns,  made  it  felony  for  the  schoolmaster  to  come  among 
us,  unless  he  were  the  avowed  enemy  of  our  creed. 

We  seek  for  nothing  but  what  we  conceive  to  be  our  rights,  and 
which  can  be  granted  without  violating  or  abridging  the  principles 
of  any  other  denomination  or  individual  breathing.  They  may  be 
refused  as  they  have  been.  If  they  should,  neither  shall  we  yet  suf¬ 
fer  our  children  to  receive  the  anti-religious  education  of  the  public 
schools,  nor  shall  we  kiss  the  hand  that  fixes  a  blot  on  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  by  oppressively  denying  our  just  claims. 

What  do  we  contend  for  ?  Simply  that  our  children  shall  be 
educated  apart  from  these  influences.  We  contend  for  liberty 
OF  CONSCIENCE  AND  FREEDOM  OF  EDUCATION.  We  hold  that  the 
laws  of  nature,  of  religion,  and  the  very  Constitution  of  the  coun¬ 
try,  secure  to  parents  the  right  of  superintending  the  education  of 
their  own  children. 

This  right  we  contend  for,  but  we  have  hitherto  been  obliged  to 
exercise  it  under  the  unjust  disadvantages  of  double  taxation.  If 
the  State,  considering  our  children  as  its  own,  grants  money  for  their 
education,  are  we  not  entitled  to  our  portion  of  it,  when  we  perform 
the  services  which  are  required. 

It  appears  not,  according  to  the  decisions  of  the  Common  Council, 
unless  we  send  our  children  to  schools  in  which  our  religious  rights 
are  to  be  violated,  and  our  offspring  qualified  to  pass  over  to  the 
thickening  ranks  of  infidelity.  This  shall  not  be  ;  much  as  we  dread 
ignorance,  we  dread  this  much  more. 

If  justice  were  done  us,  we  could  increase  the  number  of  our 
teachers  to  a  proportion  corresponding  with  the  number  of  children. 
W e  could  improve  our  means  of  teaching ;  we  could  bring  our 
children  out  of  the  damp  basements  of  our  Churches  into  the  pure 
air  of  better  localities.  In  a  word,  give  us  our  just  proportion  of 
the  Common  School  Fund,  and  if  we  do  not  give  as  good  an  educa¬ 
tion,  apart  from  religions  instruction^  as  is  given  in  the  public  schools, 
to  one  third  a  larger  number  of  children  for  the  same  money,  we  are 
willing  to  renounce  our  just  claim.  Let  the  proper  authorities  ap¬ 
point  any  test  of  improvement  that  shall  be  general,  and  we  shall 
abide  by  it.  Neither  do  we  desire  that  any  children  shall  attend 
our  schools,  except  those  of  our  own  communion ;  although  so  far 
as  we  are  concerned  they  shall  be  open  to  all. 

In  a  country  like  this  it  is  the  interest  of  all  to  protect  the  guar¬ 
anteed  rights  of  eacli.  Should  the  professors  of  some  weak  or  un¬ 
popular  religion  be  oppressed  to-day,  the  experiment  may  be  repeated 
to-morrow  on  some  other. .  Every  successful  attempt  in  that  way 
will  embolden  the  spirit  of  encroachment,  and  diminish  the  power 
of  resistance ;  and  in  such  an  event  the  monopolizers  of  education, 
after  having  discharged  the  office  of  public  tutor,  may  find  it  con¬ 
venient  1o  assume  that  of  public  preacher.  The  transition  will  not 
be  found  difficult  or  unnatural  from  the  idea  of  a  common  school,  to 
that  of  a  common  religion,  from  which,  of  course,  in  order  to  make 


THE  SCHOOL  QLESTION. 


65 


it  popular,  all  Christian  sectarianism  will  be  carefully  excluded. 
Resist  the  beginnings,  is  a  wise  maxim  in  the  preservation  of  rights. 

Should  the  American  people  ever  stand  by  and  tolerate  the  open 
and  authoritative  violation  of  their  Magna  Gharia^  then  the  Republic 
Avill  have  seen  the  end  of  its  days  of  glory. 

The  friends  of  liberty  throughout  the  civilized  world  will  fold  their 
hands  in  grief  and  despair.  The  tyrants  of  the  earth  will  jAoint  to 
the  flag  Avhich  your  fathers  planted,  and  cry,  Ila !  ha  !  The  nations 
from  afar  will  gaze  upon  it,  and  behold  Avith  astonishment  its  bright 
stars  faded  and  its  stripes  turned  into  scorpions. 

After  reading  the  address,  the  Right  Rev.  Prelate  said,  as  he  had 
had  some  connection  Avith  the  drawing  up  of  the  address,  it  might 
be  proper  that  he  should  mention  some  of  the  circumstances  au¬ 
thorizing  the  language  adopted  in  it.  An  idea  appeared  to  prevail 
that  because  the  schools  to  AA^hich  a  desire  Avas  manifested  to  compel 
them,  as  it  Avere,  to  send  their  children,  were  called  “  public  schools,” 
they  belonged  to  everybody.  ISTow'  they  spoke  of  a  “  public  square  ” 
as  of  something  that  was  public;  and,  in  ordinary  phraseology, 
“public  schools”  would  be  schools  belonging  to  the  State;  but,  if 
they  conceived  that  idea  of  the  public  schools  in  question,  they 
were  mistaken.  What  belonged  to  the  State  belonged  to  the  people 
of  the  State,  and  what  belonged  to  the  city  belonged  to  the  people 
of  the  city;  but  here  these  schools  belonged, to  a  private  incorpo¬ 
rated  Society,  and  from  the  commencement  they  had  changed  their 
character  as  much  as  it  was  pqssible  for  them  to  change.  For  Avhat 
purpose  does  the  first  charter  of  this  incorporated  Public  School 
Society  purport  to  have  been  gh^eii  ?  They  had  read  the  language 
of  the  report  draAvn  up  by  the  Common  Council,  in  Avhich  it  Avas 
stated  that  anything  sectarian  or  religious  in  the  instruction  given 
in  a  school  was  a  disqualification,  and  cut  off  that  school  from  all 
participation  in  the  Common  School  Fund  ;  but  this  Avas  not  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  charter  by  Avhich  the  Public  School  Society  Avas  incor¬ 
porated  ;  for  in  that  it  was  recited  that  it  was  giA^en  for  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  children  belonging  to  no  known  denomination,  and  for  im¬ 
planting  in  their  minds  the  principles  of  religion  and  morality.  There 
Avas  no  dread  of  sectarianism  then.  From  that  time  this  Public 
School  Society,  thus  incorporated,  passed  on,  step  by  step,  enlarging 
their  poAvers,  and  becoming  favorites  Avith  the  State  and  City  author¬ 
ities,  until  this  private  incorporation  took  charge  of  the  children — 
hot  of  no  knoAvn  denomination,  that  they  might  be  taught  religion 
and  morality,  but  of  all  classes,  and  upon  a  principle  that  operated 
to  exclude  religion  altogether.  It  Avas  not  then  Avithout  authority 
that  the  language  of  the  address  Avas  so  strong  on  this  matter.  The 
Common  Council  held  the  doctrine  that  the  schools  to  be  common- 
schools,  should  be  open  to  all,  and  that  those  branches  of  education, 
and  those  only,  should  be  taught  Avhich  tend  to  fit  youth  for  the 
ordinary  occu])ations  of  life.  They  strip  it  of  all  religion,  because 
religion  has  reference  to  a  future  state ;  and  to  make  the  system 
5 


66 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


common,  they  profess  to  provide  for  the  education  of  Mohammed¬ 
ans  and  Jews,  without  violating  religious  belief.  Well,  but  Cath 
olics,  as  has  been  repeatedly  and  abundantly  shown,  could  not  send 
their  children  to  those  schools  without  violating  their  religious  be¬ 
lief,  and  he  thought  they  ought  to  have  the  privilege  that  was  so 
bountifully  provided  for  the  Mohammedan.  [Apjalause.]  But  not¬ 
withstanding  the  professions  made,  this  system,  so  full  is  it  of  incon¬ 
sistency  as  well  as  mischief,  did  not  exclude  religious  teaching,  for 
the  Scriptures  were  read,  and  that  was  one  form  of  religion,  and 
many  people  thought  it  sufficient  for  all  purposes.  But  all  the 
teaching  the  State  had  in  view,  according  to  the  construction  of  the 
Common  Council,  was  confined  to  what  would  make  man  useful  in 
this  life  ;  that  is,  make  him  an  intellectual  and  mechanical  machine. 
Now  he  did  not  understand  that  a  man  would  not  be  equally  w'ell 
qualified  to  become  a  good  mechanic,  if  he  understood  the  Christian 
religion,  or  that  to  blend  religion  with  his  secular  knowledge  would 
disqualify  him  for  usefulness  in  this  life.  [Applause.]  Oh !  but 
only  get  him  to  read  Mr.  Hume’s  chapter,  entitled  the  “  Execution  of 
Cranmerf  Dr.  Robertson’s  “  Character  of  Martin  Luther f  the  little 
innocent  story  of  “  Phelim  Maghee,”  and  the  “  Irish  Heart,”  and 
then  he  would  make  an  excellent  mechanic.  [Laughter.]  He  had 
made  these  few  observations  merely  to  show  that  these  schools  did 
not  belong  to  the  public,  in  the  common  sense  of  the  terra,  but  to 
a  private  corporation  which  had  received  a  vast  deal  of  the  public 
money,  and  still  continued  to  receive  it,  while  they  who  contributed 
that  money  were  deprived  of  the  benefits  'which  the  State  intended 
it  should  confer,  and  they,  in  conse4uence,  were  obliged  again  to 
contribute  to  the  education  of  their  children  in  another  form. 
[Great  applause.[ 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  counseled  them,  while  they 
joined  to  obtain  their  just  demands  in  reference  to  this  Common 
School  System,  to  be  good  citizens  in  all  the  relations  of  life,  and  to 
be  kind  and  charitable  in  the  world,  and  thereby  throw  suspicion 
on  the  minds  of  even  their  enemies  of  the  truth  of  the  ridiculous  and 
absurd  tales  told  of  them  in  the  books  which  were  now  read  in  the 
Public  Schools;  but  in  the  mean  time  let  them  withdraw  their 
children  from  their  bad  influence.  [Great  applause.] 


Meeting  in  the  Basement  of  St.  James’  Church,  August 

24.  1840. 

Pursuant  to  adjournment,  another  crowded  meeting  of  Catholics 
was  held  in  the  basement  of  St.  .James’  Church,  James  street,  on 
the  evening  of  Monday,  August  24,  on  the  subject  of  their  claim  to- 
a  portion  of  the  Common  School  Fund  for  the  education  of  their 
children.  Mr.  Gregory  Dillon  was  called  to  the  chair,  and  the 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


67 


I 


secretaries  of  previous  meetings  were  re-elected.  The  minutes  of 
the  last  meeting  having  been  read  and  approved, 

The  Kight  Kev.  Bishop  Hughes  came  forward  to  address  the 
meeting,  and  was  most  enthusiastically  received.  Ho  commenced 
by  observing  that  it  might  not  be  unadvisable  to  remind  the  meet¬ 
ing,  which  consisted  of  persons  deeply  interested  in  the  question 
before  them,  of  the  true  principles  which  the  question  involved,  of 
the  extent  to  which  their  claim  reached,  and  of  the  limit  by  which  it 
was  and  ought  to  be  bounded,  for  they  ap^ieared  to  be  peculiarly 
unfortunate  in  making  themselves  understood  wheii  they  come  be¬ 
fore  the  public  to  vindicate  even  one  of  the  simplest  rights  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  citizens  of  this  country  ;  they  were  peculiarly  unfortunate 
in  having  their  motives  misrepresented  and  their  intentions  not 
charitably  construed.  This,  however,  was  greatly  less  the  case  at 
the  present  time  than  heretofore  ;  nevertheless,  even  now  there  had 
been  published  in  newspapers  of  this  city  statements  of  circum¬ 
stances  in  regard  to  their  proceedings  which  had  never  occurred,  to 
his  knowledge,  and  to  which  the  meeting  would  also  find  themselves 
strangers.  [Applause.]  Certainly,  they  were  not  of  much  import¬ 
ance  ;  but  as  there  was  much  credulity  abroad,  and  as  everything 
which  went  forth  to  their  disparagement  from  their  opponents  could 
not  be  contradicted  in  writing,  for  which  few  of  them  could  find  the 


time,  it  became  necessary,  on  an  occasion  like  the  present,  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  give  utterance  to  their  disavowal. 
[Applause.] 

In  the  Journal  of  Commerce  of  that  morning  there  was  a  writer 
who  acknowledged  himself  to  be  a  teacher  in  a  public  school,  and 
that  gentleman  appeared  to  be  highly  offended  with  tliem  for  lan¬ 
guage  and  proceedings  which  he  attributed  to  them  in  the  progress 
of  that  work.  Now  many  of  those  then  present  had  heard  him  (the 
Right  Rev.  Prelate)  and  others  speak  there  from  tlie  first  hour  to 
the  present,  and  they  had  not  heard  one  uncharitable,  one  unkind, 
one  disrespectful  word  respecting  the  character  or  the  motives  of 
any  person  connected  with  the  Common  School  System.  They  had 
made  and  did  make  a  broad  distinction  between  the  system  of 
Common  School  education,  in  connection  with  its  necessary  results, 
and  the  private  characters  of  the  parties  who  administered  it,  and 
the  standing  of  those  who  were  its  special  protectors.  This  gentle¬ 
man  said  that  they  (the  Catholics)  say  in  amount  that  the  persons 
connected  with  the  Common  School  System  are  all  infidels.  But 
who  ever  said  such  a  thing  ?  Did  they  ever  say  that  infidelity  was 
taught  in  those  schools?  Never;  but  they  did  say  that  the  con¬ 
ductors  of  the  Common  Schools  profess  to  exclude  everything  secta¬ 
rian,  and  that  this  they  could  not  do  if  they  would  ;  and  should  not, 
if  they  could ;  for  if  they  did,  there  would  be  the  absence  of  every¬ 
thing  like  Cliristianity,  and  there  would  consequently  be  nothing 
remaining  but  what  they  (the  Catliolics)  call  infidelity.  Those 
schools  would  teach  children  the  mathematics,  but  not  a  word  about 
God ;  and  what  would  that  be  but  practical  infidelity  ?  What 


68 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


I 


would  be  tlioir  creed  but  that  which  knows  not  God?  l^ow  this 
they  believed  would  be  the  result  of  the  system,  though  not  the 
intention  of  its  managers.  They  (the  Catholics)  would  respect  their 
intentions,  though  they  knew  them  not;  and  they  therefore  could 
only  meet  them  on  the  ground  which  they  had  themselves  chosen  to 
occupy,  judge  of  them  by  their  own  professions  and  by  the  docu¬ 
ments  which  they  had  given  to  the  world,  and  on  a  comparison  with 
the  results  w'hich  were  unavoidable ;  then  say  whether  the  Public 
School  System,  if  it  could  have  any  influence,  was  not  hostile  to 
Christianity,  and,  consequently,  infidel.  [Applause.]  He  did  not 
pretend  to  say  that  this  was  intended,  but  that  it  would  be  the  re¬ 
sult.  He  did  not  say  that  the  boys,  because  they  attended  those 
schools,  would  necessarily  become  infidels  ;  but  if  not,  no  thanks  to 
that  school  system,  but  to  the  teaching  of  the  parents  at  home ;  to 
the  knowledge,  and  piety  and  anxious  solicitude  of  parents,  and  to 
their  pastors  too  [applause] — for  which  the  system  was  entitled  to 
no  credit.  [Renewed  applause.] 

But  there  were  other  remarks  made  by  the  Churchman.  Now 
that  was  the  paper  of  a  very  respectable  denomination — the  Epis¬ 
copal — and  it  did  not  quarrel  with  the  arguments  ;  it  did  not  dis¬ 
pute  the  grounds  on  which  their  claim  was  based,  but,  half  sidling 
for  and  half  sidling  against  tliem,  it  concluded  by  observing  that 
it  was  not  so  much  surprised  at  the  nature  of  the  claim  itself  as  at 
the  boldness  with  which  it  was  put  forward.  [Laughter.]  He  should 
like  to  know  if,  in  this  country,  this  Churchman  would  like  to  see, 
or  expected,  that  they  would  creep  when  they  came  to  demand  a 
right ;  or  whether  in  a  country  and  under  a  Constitution  which 
treated  all  men  as  equal,  and  respected  all  men  alike,  they  should 
not  stand  straight  iip  and  say  what  they  wanted — their  claim  being 
couched  in  respectful  language,  which  should  'not  entitle  it  to  the 
charge  of  “  boldness.”  [Applause.]  But  there  had  been  nothing  in 
their  proceedings  to  justify  the  charge  of  boldness  ;  there  had  been 
no  presumption  ;  and  this  the  Churchman  ought  to  know.  In  the 
United  States,  Catholics  are  not  obliged  to  recognize  “  Canterbury 
high.  Sir.”  [Great  applause.] 

Having  made  these  remarks,  he  would  call  the  attention  of  the 
meeting  to  another  subject.  When  the  application  was  made  to 
the  Common  Council,  it  appeared  by  the  case,  as  submitted  to  the 
public,  that  the  Common  Council  sat  as  jurors,  that  the  Catholics 
appeared  as  opposed  to  the  Common  School  Society,  and  stated  that 
they  could  not  in  their  consciences  send  their  children  to  these 
schools,  and  that  advocates,  as  representatives  of  the  Public  School 
Society,  appeared  to  oppose  them,  and  determined  that  Catholics 
could  in  their  consciences  send  their  children  to  them.  Now  he  (the 
Bishop)  understood  that,  in  this  country,  one  man  had  not  the  right 
to  say  what,  in  conscience,  another  man  could  do ;  and  if  he  did  so, 
that  it  Avas  an  assumption  of  a  prerogative  that  Avas  not  his.  Those 
advocates,  too,  set  forth  a  statement  in  contradiction  of  those  made 
by  the  Catholics,  and  of  some  which  they  had  not  advanced,  in 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


69 


Tvliich  they  asserted  that  there  was  nothing  in  their  books  which 
Catiiolics  might  not  permit  their  children  to  read,  that  there  was 
nothing  in  tliem  hostile  to  the  Catholic  religion,  nor  anything  that 
could  prejudice  against  it  the  minds  of  Catholic  children.  Yet  had 
they  not  heard  chapter  after  chapter,  and  page  after  page,  which 
they  would  not  allow  their  children  to  read  ?  Had  they  not  heard 
the  chapter  by  Mr.  Hume,  on  the  Execution  of  Cranmer ;  and  the 
Character  of  Martin  Luther^  by  Hr.  Robertson  ;  and  other  chapters 
from  Presbyterian  clergymen  ;  and  on  subjects  too  which  deeply 
involved  their  religious  faith,  and  which  they  could  not  conscien¬ 
tiously  and  religiously  allow  their  children  to  read  ?  [Applause.] 
Now,  with  their  permission,  he  would  draw  their  attention  to  some 
passages  in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  Common  Council ;  he 
would  merely  allude  to  some  few  principal  points,  for  it  was  too 
long  to  be  read  at  length.  They  set  forth  that  Catholics  made  such 
and  such  objections  to  the  existing  system,  and  that  they  were  con¬ 
tradicted  by  the  Superintendents  of  the  Public  Schools ;  and  then 
they  came  to  what  they  regarded  as  the  vital  part  of  the  question. 
They  say  as  follows:  “The  questions  to  which  the  committee  have 
directed  their  attention  are  as  follows :  First,  Have  the  Common 
Council  of  this  city,  under  the  existing  laws  relative  to  common 
schools  in  the  city  of  New  York,  a  legal  right  to  appropriate  any 
portion  of  the  school  fund  to  religious  corporations  ?”  Now,  with 
great  deference,  he  did  not  conceive  that  that  was  the  case  at  all. 
He  should  like  to  know  from  the  venerable  chairman  of  their  pre¬ 
vious  meetings,  whether  he  and  those  who  accompanied  him  went 
to  the  Common  Council  to  ask  for  money  for  a  religious  corpora¬ 
tion  ?  That  v\^as  not  the  question,  he  (the  Bishop)  contended  posi¬ 
tively  ;  but  this  and  this  only  was  the  question  which  that  com¬ 
mittee  should  have  asked  themselves :  w^hether  the  Common  Council, 
under  a  law  of  the  State,  should  impose  a  tax  on  the  people,  and 
not  allow  them  the  equivalent  intended  by  law  for  which  it  was 
imposed,  in  return.  That  was  the  true  question  [applause] ;  and 
he  declared  to  the  meeting  that  if  any  person  had  asked  for  money, 
in  the  name  of  Catholics,  for  “  a  religious  corporation,”  he  would 
have  been  the  first  to  refuse  it.  They  wanted  no  money  for  reli¬ 
gious  corporations.  Their  religion  they  wished  to  support,  and 
they  wished  all  other  men  to  have  the  same  privilege,  hy  their  oivn 
free  choice,  and  in  no  other  way.  [Applause.] 

The  next  question  which  the  committee  ask — and  it  is  as  a  corol¬ 
lary  of  the  Other-— is,  “Would  the  exercise  of  such  power  be  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  and  the  nature  of  our 
government  ?”  N ow,  what  child  would  not  be  able  to  make  an 
argument  on  that  ?  Why  that  was  an  incorrect  issue,  and  was  not 
the  question  at  all.  The  real  question  was  this  :  “  Have  any  por¬ 
tion  of  the  citizens  of  this  State  been  subject  to  a  law  which  compels 
them  to  pay  a  tax,  and  have  the  benefits,  for  which  it  was  intended, 
been  so  returned  to  them  that  their  religious  consciences  would  be 
violated  in  their  acceptance?”  [Applause.]  That  is  the  question. 


70 


AKCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


The  committee  could  have  no  difficulty  in  proving  that  “  religious 
corporations  ”  were  not  the  proper  recipients.  True,  the  trustees 
of  the  Catholic  churches  might  be  considered  as  the  citizens  of  that 
communion,  but  he  disclaimed  the  application  to  the  Common 
Council  on  other  grounds  than  as  American  citizens  claiming  the 
riglits  of  conscience  and  the  liberty  to  educate  their  own  children. 
Religion  was  entirely  a  private  matter.  If  the  conductors  of  the 
])ublic  schools  would  see  that  our  children  were  educated  imder  the 
Public  School  System  and  discipline — whether  Lancasterian  or  other¬ 
wise — they  (the  Catholics)  cared  nothing  about  it ;  but  they  Avanted 
their  children,  without  injury  to  conscience,  to  have  their  share  of 
the  benefits  from  taxes  AAffiich  they  had  contributed.  Now,  of  all 
things  calculated  to  spoil  the  merits  of  a  question,  an  incorrect 
statement  of  it  had  the  most  power  to  do  so.  If  the  state  of  the 
question  as  to  its  real  issue  were  erroneous,  they  could  not  arrive  at 
just  conclusions ;  and  if  the  issue  were  false,  all  arguments  in  its 
support  would  fall  to  the  ground.  But  these  gentlemen,  in  their 
report  to  the  Common  Council,  with  w'onderful  energy,  had  almost 
proved  that  it  would  be  a  union  of  Church  and  State ;  and  so  it 
would,  if  Avhat  they  stated  were  correct.  While  the  advocates  of 
the  Public  School  Society  Avere  asserting  that  there  Avas  nothing  in 
the  books  to  Avhich  Catholics  could  object,  he  Avould  appeal  to  the 
meeting  Avhether  they  had  not  seen  page  after  page  which  showed 
clearly  the  evils  that  Avould  result  from  such  a  system.  [Applause.] 
But  the  gentlemen  go  on  to  shoAV  in  that  committee’s  report  the 
history  and  the  progress  of  the  question,  and  AAdiat  the  law  Avas. 
He  (the  Bishop)  should  not  go  through  the  Avhole  facts  Avith  them, 
nor  into .  the  inquiry  Avhether  a  certain  Baptist  church  Avas  guilty 
of  peculation ;  he  should  confine  himself  to  the  evils  of  this  system, 
and  to  the  inquiry  whether  Catholics  got  their  rights,  and  by  and 
by  he  would  show  them  some  further  extracts  from  the  books,  and 
shoAV  that  the  managers  of  the  Public  Schools  could  not,  or  at  least 
should  not,  but  knoAv  that  the  books  contained  passages  reflecting 
on  the  Catholic  religion,  and  consequently  that  they  Avere  unfit  to 
put  into  the  hands  of  their  children.  After  setting  forth  the  evils 
of  sectarianism,  they  proceed  in  their  report  to  say :  “  To  prevent, 
in  our  day  and  country,  the  recurrence  of  scenes  so  abhorrent  to 
every  principle  of  justice,  humanity,  and  right,  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States  have  declared,  in  some 
form  or  other,  that  there  should  be  no  establishment  of  religion  by 
laAv.”  Precisely  what  Ave  wish.  “That  the  affairs  of  the  State 
should  be  kept  entirely  distinct  from,  and  unconnected  Avith,  those 
of  the  church ;  that  every  human  being  should  Avorship  God  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  dictates  of  his  OAvn  conscience and  yet  they  will 
not  allow  us  to  do  so ;  “  that  all  churches  and  religions  should  be 
supported  by  Amluntary  contribution ;  and  that  no  tax  should  ever 
be  imposed  for  the  benefit  of  any  denomination  of  religion,  for  any 
cause  or  under  any  pretence  Avhatever.”  Just  as  if  you  AA'anted  the 
Common  Council  to  pay  your  church  dues  or  peAV  rent.  [Laughter,] 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIO^It. 


11 

Now  Catliolics  did  not  want  this  money  foi’  their  own  benefit,  but 
for  the  benefit  of  those  to  whom  the  law  appropriated  it,  and  with¬ 
out  violating  the  rights  of  conscience,  which  they  ^vere  told  the 
Cons'titution  secured  to  them.  Tliey  then  passed  on  to  the  observ¬ 
ation,  that  “  An  appropriation  of  any  portion  of  that  sum  to  the 
support  of  schools,  in  which  the  religious  tenets  of  any  sect  are  taught 
to  any  extent,  would  be  a  legal  establishment  of  one  denomination 
of  religion  over  another.”  Now  let  them  not  be  misunderstood. 
Catholics  did  not  wish  to  teach  religion  in  those  schools  ;  but  when 
they  taught  their  children  to  read,  instead  of  giving  them,  as  a 
reading  lesson,  Hume’s  chapter  on  the  “  Execution  of  Cramnerf 
they  thought  they  could  give  them  a  better  chapter  out  of  Lingard, 
respecting  the  struggle  of  the  English  barons  and  bishops  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  English  king  on  the  other,  when  the  great  char¬ 
ter  of  liberty  was  secured.  That  would  be  a  better  lesson,  too,  than 
Dr.  Robertson’s  Life  of  Luther.  And  here,  again,  they  were  told, 
after  the  observation  about  the  “  legal  establishment  of  one  denomi¬ 
nation  of  religion  over  the  other,”  that  this  “  would  conflict  with  all 
the  principles  and  purposes  of  our  free  institutions,  and  would  vio¬ 
late  the  very  letter  of  that  part  of  our  Constitution  which  so  emphat¬ 
ically  declai’es  that  ‘the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious 
profession  and  worship,  without  discrimination  or  ■preference.,  shall  for 
ever  be  allowed,  in  this  State,  to  all  mankind.’  ”  Why,  here  again 
the  committee  were  laboring  with  a  phantom  of  their  own  inven¬ 
tion,  unless  the ‘gentlemen  who  waited  ui^on  the  Council  asked  for 
money  to  help  the  Church. 

Mr.  O’CoNNon.  No,  sir,  I  believe  not. 

The  Bishop.  Then  it  was  the  working  of  their  own  imagination, 
and  with  all  respect  for  these  gentlemen,  for  they  quote  the  law 
fairly ;  but  when  they  supposed  the  law,  as  quoted,  applied  to  them 
(the  Catholics),  they  reversed  the  position  of  the  Catholics.  Finally, 
“  In  this  opinion  your  committee  hope  the  Board,  the  petitioners, 
and  the  public  will  concur that  is,  when  they  say  it  ought  not  to 
be  given.  “The  question  is  one  of  that  character  which  appeals  to 
the  liveliest  feelings  of  our  nature,  and  one  which  is  too  apt  to  create 
excitement  and  jealousy.”  Not  if  it  was  properly  understood  and 
fairly  discussed  ;  for  he  believed  the  public  mind  in  this  country, 
at  least,  the  highland  generous  portion  of  it,  would  not  allow  any 
man's  civil  or  religious  rights  to  be  encroached  upon  without  any 
pretext  whatever.  “  They  conclude  by  expressing  the  hope  that 
the  petitioners,  upon  a  full  examination  of  the  question,  will  perceive 
that  the  granting  of  their  petition  would  be  at  least  of  doubtful 
legality,  foreign  to  the  design  of  the  School  Fund,  and  at  variance 
with  the  spirit  of  our  public  institutions.”  Then  it  followed  that 
the  support  of  a  f)ublic  institution  required  that  their  consciences 
and  their  freedom  should  be  violated.  And  who  would  contend  for 
that  ? 

In  the  commencement  he  had  stated  that  it  appeared  the  repre- 
eentatives  of  the  public  schools  had  contradicted  the  statement  of 


72 


lA.ECnBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Catholics,  that  their  hooks  contained  lessons  that  reflected  on  Catho¬ 
lics.  Now  they  had  read  several  passages  at  previous  meetings,  of 
which  they  were  all  able  to  judge  ;  but  he  would  take  one  or  two 
other  brief  passages,  and  he  should  like  to  see  whether  those  gentle¬ 
men  would  again  stand  before  the  Common  Council  and  say  that 
the  books  contained  nothing  against  Catholics.  In  “  Putnam’s  Se¬ 
quel,”  page  296  of  the  Appendix,  they  had  a  note  on  Luther,  Avhich 
said,  “  Luther,  the  great  reformer,  Avas,  at  first,  a  Benedictine  monk.” 
Now,  he  was  not,  for  lie  Avas  an  Augustinian.  [Laughter.]  “He 
lived  toward  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  and  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
centuries.  The  cause  of  learning,  of  religion,  and  of  civil  liberty,  is 
indebted  to  him  more  than  to  any  other  man  since  the  apostles.” 
Well  that  Avas  a  matter  of  opinion  j  but  at  all  events  there  should  be 
excepted  Erasmus,  who  was  a  scholar,  though  a  priest  like  himself. 
He  Avas  first  led  aAvay,  though  he  neA^er  doubted  the  Catholic  faith, 
by  popular  abuses,  Avhich  he  thought  could  be  removed ;  but  he  Avas 
devoted  to  literature,  and  he  deplored  the  Reformation  precisely  on 
the  ground  that  it  would  throAV  back  the  progress  of  literature  a 
hundred  years.  Here  letters  were  reviving,  men  Avere  devoting 
themselves  to  the  study  of  antiquity,  and  here,  he  complained,  there 
was  nothing  but  broils  and  polemical  disputations,  and  literature 
Avas  neglected.  Whether  Luther  Avas  such  a  friend  to  literature,  he 
(the  Bishop)  kneAV  not.  But  here  Avas  another  passage,  on  “John 
Huss,”  of  Avhom  it  said,  “John  Huss,  a  zealous  reformer  from 
Ppjnry^  Avho  lived  in  Bohemia  toAvards  the  close  of  the  fourteenth, 
and  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  centuries.  He  was  bold  and  per¬ 
severing  ;  but,  at  length,  trusting  himself  to  the  deceitful  Catholics, 
he  Avas  by  them  brought  to  trial,  condemned  as  a  heretic,  and  burnt 
at  the  stake.”  Now  these  are  lessons  for  the  instruction  of  your 
children,  and  yet  gentlemen  go  to  the  Common  Council  and  tell 
them  these  books  contain  nothing  against  Catholics.  Noav,  besides 
the  injury  done  to  their  children,  let  him  observe  that  he  did  not 
conceive,  even  if  Catholic  children  Avere  separated  from  those  schools, 
AA'hile  they  Avere  supported  at  the  public  expense,  that  passages  like 
thesd,  Avhich  were  calculated  to  fix  a  settled  prejudice  in  the  mind 
of  one  class  of  felloAA^-citizens  against  another,  were  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  their  constitution,  or  those  high  and  holy  principles 
which  religion  taught  them ;  nor  could  they  be  of  advantage  in  an 
enlightened  system  of  public  education.  GNe  to  Catholics  their 
proportion  of  this  fund,  and  they  might  search  their  books  from  one 
end  to  the  other,  and  however  much  they  might  insist  on  the  truth 
of  their  oAvn  religion,  there  Avould  not  bo  found  a  single  ])assage 
calculated  to  implant  in  the  minds  of  their  children  a  single  con- 
tem})tuous  thought  of  any  man  or  body  of  men  in  the  United  States. 
But  he  was  surpiised  that  the  Public  School  Society,  because  they 
taught  no  doctrine  from  any  specific  text,  Avhile  they  introduced 
page  after  page  such  as  he  had  read,  should  appear  before  the  public 
authorities  and  claim  the  money  Avhich  Catholics  conceived  to  be 
due  to  th'em,  and  deprive  them  of  their  rights  secured  to  them  by 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


u 

law,  on  the  ground  that  there  was  nothing  sectarian  in  their  books. 
And  he  was  equalfy  surprised  that  the  gentlemen  should  feel  hurt 
at  that  which  they  ascribed  to  the  system,  and  not  to  tlie  men  con¬ 
nected  with  it,  though  they  had  said  that  Catholics  could  send  their 
chikU'en  to  these  schools  without  any  violation  of  conscience — that 
there  was  nothing  that  could  possibly  give  oflence — and  he  would 
ask  them  how  this  could  be  reconciled  with  the  specimens  he  had 
quoted.  But  there  was  another  ground.  He  was  surprised  that 
that  Society  should  think  it  was  their  interest  to  compel  all  children 
learning  to  read,  to  learn  under  their  exclusive  patronage.  lie 
thought  the  intention  of  the  State  was  that  every  child  in  the  Com¬ 
monwealth  should  be  educated^  and  not  that  his  religious  rights 
and  liis  conscience  or  those  of  his  parents  should  be  violated.  He 
would  concede  to  the  Public  School  System,  with  all  dne  respect, 
and  nothing  more,  that  which  it  was  entitled  to;  but  that  Society 
thought  it  was  exclusively  entitled  to  not  only  what  was  appropri¬ 
ated  to  it,  but  also  to  hinder  Catholics  from  obtaining  their  rights, 
which  >vas  sacred  and  indisputable.  And  why  was  it  he  felt  so  sur¬ 
prised  ?  It  wms  this ;  this  Public  School  Society  was  not  at  any 
time  from  its  orign  the  representative  of  the  State,  but  merely  a 
private  corporation ;  ifs  trustees  w'ere  not  elected  by  the  voice  of 
the  jieople ;  but  they  'were  a  society  composed  of  members  who 
■were  qualified  by  contribution,  or  other-wise  became  members  by 
election  within  their  pwm  body.  [Hear,  heai’.]  Before  they  ex¬ 
isted  as  a  society,  provision  was  made  for  the  education  of  the  chil¬ 
dren,  and  there  was  no  turmoil,  there  was  no  civil  war;  there  -were 
none  of  the  terrible  consequences  and  evils  which  appeared  now  to 
be  anticipated  if  the  claim  of  the  Catholics  should  be  conceded. 
Then  education  Avas  amply  provided ;  each  school  had  its  own  chil¬ 
dren  ;  each  party  took  care  of  its  OAvn  rights,  which  they  thought 
sacred,  and  everything  went  on  in  perfect  harmony  and  for  the  good 
of  the  Avhole.  And  when  this  Public  School  Society  Avas  formed, 
it  AA^as  formed  Avith  a  laudable  purpose,  with  a  name  at  its  head  Avhich 
shone  among  the  brightest  on  the  page  of  American  history — De 
Witt  Clinton.  [Applause.]  The  gentlemen  forming  that  society 
saAV  a  number  of  surplus  neglected  children  apparently  Avith  no  one 
to  take  care  of  them,  and  they  proposed  to  take  care  of  the  children 
for  Avhoni  nobody  cared  before.  Their  object  Avas  pure,  and  be¬ 
nevolent,  and  jjatriotic ;  and  accordingly  in  the  A’ery  first  charter  of 
this  society,  Avhich  however  has  since  repeatedly  changed  its  name, 
the  object  Avas  stated  to  be — “the  education  of  the  children  of  per¬ 
sons  in  indigent  circumstances,  and  Avho  do  not  belong  to,  or  are 
not  provided  for,  by  any  religious  society.”  In  that  charter  there 
Avas  nothing  said  about  excluding  sectarianism :  nothing  of  the  sort ; 
but  when  they  go  before  the  Legislature,  they  go  before  a  Christian 
legislature,  and  no  doubt  they  Avere  Christians  themselvgs  and  men 
of  good  motive.  After  the  first  }>aragraph  in  their  act  of  incorpora¬ 
tion,  the  second  begins — “  And  whereas  the  said  persons  have  pre« 
seated  a  petition  to  the  Legislature  setting  forth  the  benefits  which 


74 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


would  result  to  society  from  the  education  of  such  childien,  hy  im- 
flaMing  in  their  minds  the  'principles  of  religion  and  morality,  and  by 
assisting  their  parents  to  provide  suitable  situations  for  them,  where 
habits  of  industry  and  virtue  may  be  acquired,  and  that  it  would 
enable  them  more  effectually  to  accomplish  the  benevolent  objecds  of 
their  institntion,  if  the  association  were  incorporated,”  And  this 
line  Society  which  was  originally  instituted  to  implant  in  the  minds 
jf  children  “  the  principles  of  religion  and  morality,”  now  came  out 
against  Catholics  tind  said,  if  they  gave  children  such  instruction 
they  were  not  entitled  to  any  benefit  from  the  Public  School  Fund 
[hear,  hear],  and  they  have  not  only  said  so,  but  from  the  period 
of  the  misapplication  of  the  funds  by  one  society  being  detected,  the 
part  which  related  to  religious  societies  before,  was  altered  by  law. 
Until  that  time,  every  society  had  the  right  to  go  before  the  Corpo¬ 
ration  and  demand  its  share ;  but  from  that  time  they  were  deprived 
of  the  right  to  demand  it,  but  a  discretion  was  given  to  the  Common 
Council ;  as  though  the  Legislature  had  said,  “  here  is  abuse  ;  if  it  is 
connected  with  that  system  let  it  be  abolished ;  but  we  leave  the 
Common  Council  of  New  York  to  determine  what  schools  shall  be 
entitled  to  the  money;”  and  after  that  arrangement  between  the 
Legislature  and  the  Common  Council,  they  each  (Christian  denomi¬ 
nation)  apparently  gave  up  to  the  system,  and  so  it  had  gone  on. 
But  up  to  this  time  other  societies  had  been  receiving  the  money, 
and  there  was  nothing  in  their  institutions  or  schools  to  disqualify 
them ;  for  they  would  observe  that  they  were  called  either  “  insti¬ 
tutions  or  schools,”  and  either  were  proper  for  the  exercise  of  the 
discretion  of  the  Common  Council ;  but  while  the  Common  Council 
would  exercise  this  discretion,  behold  these  gentlemen,  who  were 
originally  incorporated  for  the  giving  of  religious  instruction  and 
implanting  of  moral  principles,  step  between  Catholics  and  the  Cor¬ 
poration  and  say,  “  No ;  because  you  teach  your  children  religion 
YOU  are  not  entitled  to  it.”  Now  it  was  a  matter  of  discretion  with 
the  Common  Council ;  there  was  certainly  not  a  single  provision 
that  stood  in  the  way  of  such  a  just  and  fair  interpretation ;  and 
when  the  obstacles  already  alluded  to  were  put  in  the  way,  they  (the 
Public  School  Society)  were  receiving  their  portion  for  the  same 
purpose.  And  after  all  what  was  this  incorporation  but  a  private 
incorporation  like  any  other ;  not  one  certainly  to  dictate  to  the 
whole  of  New  York.  It  was  instituted  for  a  specific  purpose,  useful 
and  honorable  in  itself ;  and  he  had  no  doubt  that  those  gentlemen’s 
best  wishes  were  for  the  extension  of  their  system  of  education ; 
but  they  ought  not  to  force  it  on  Catholics ;  it  was  not  modest  in 
them  to  do  so,  nor  to  send  advocates  to  the  Common  Council  to 
plead  against  the  rights  of  Catholics  when  they  were  but  a  private 
corporation  themselves.  If  they  had  represented  the  whole  State 
and  had  olitained  a  “patent-general”  he  should  have  respected  them 
and  their  opposition  ;  but  their  act  of  incorporjition  was  private,  and 
they  had  never  been  able  to  raise  it  to  more-  than  that.  But  he 
would  show  a  little  of  its  history  by  an  abstract  of  its  several  acts 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


75 


of  incor])oi’ation.  Originally,  it  seemed,  it  was  the  smallest  of  all, 
but  like  Pharaoh’s  lean  kine,  it  had  eaten  up  all  the  rest.  In  1805 
it  was  incorporated  by  the  name  of  “  A  Society  instituted  in  the 
city  of  New  York  for  the  establishment  of  a  Free  School,  for  the 
education  of  poor  children,  Avho  do  not  belong  to,  or  are  not  pro¬ 
vided  for  by  any  religious  society.”  In  1808  its  power  was  extended 
to  any  poor  or  destitxxte  childi-en,  and  its  name  was  changed  to  that 
of  “  The  Free  School  Society  of  N exv  York.”  Here  in  three  years  after 
its  origin  was  the  first  extension  of  its  powers,  thoxxgh  there  were 
several  intermediate  acts  swelling  its  j^rivileges.  The  enactment 
was  in  these  words  :  “  The  name  of  the  said  coi'poration  shall  be,  and 
hereby  is,  changed,  and  that  it  shall  in  future  be  denominated,  ‘  The 
Free  School  Society  of  New  Yoi'k,’  and  that  its  powers  shall  extend 
to  all  children,  who  are  proper  objects  of  a  gratuitoxxs  education.’  ” 
Noav  there  Avas  something  Avoi-thy  of  notice  in  the  last  naxne  as- 
sxxmed,  that  of  “Public  Schools,”  Avith  which  they  were  axxthorized 
by  another  act  of  the  Legislature  of  1826,  to  label  these  schools, 
“  Pxxblic  School  Society  of  New  York  !”  as  thoxxgh  they  belonged  to 
the  State,  Avhereas  the  schools  belonged  bixt  to  the  Society  itself,  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  charter.  It  was  to  be  observed  that  this  Society 
claimed,  and  he  did  ixot  pretend  to  deny  their  claim  to,  patriotic  in¬ 
tentions  and  good  motives,  but  if  their  good  intentions  conflicted 
with  the  rights  of  Catholics  it  could  not  be  expected  that  Catholics 
Avould  submit  to  their  good  “  intentions.”  Thus  this  Society  had 
gone  on,  and  it  had  received  aid  to  erect  its  public  schools,  and  in 
another  act  they  were  authorized  to  receive  payment  from  the  parents 
of  scholars,  and  yet  Avere  not  to  be  deprNed  on  that  accpxint  of  a 
coi*responding  portion  of  the  public  fund ;  so  that  they  could  receive 
pay  from  the  parent  and  yet  count  the  child  in  the  number  of  those 
for  whom  they  received  payment  from  the  State.  No  doubt  they 
wished  the  poor  to  attend  those  schools :  the  schools  Avere  intended 
for  all,  but  principally  for  the  poor,  Avhose  'parents  were  not  able  to 
give  them  a  good  edxxcation  ;  but  they  Avere  now  attended  by  the 
children  of  such  respectable  citizens  that  the  children  of  the  pooi’,  in 
their  mean  robes  and  xxnseemly  garments,  were  often  ashamed  to 
appear  in  such  genteel  company.  W ell,  then  those  schools  received 
certain  specific  appropriations,  they  then  might  receive  payment 
from  the  parents  of  children  attending  and  did  receive  from  the 
State  for  the  same  children  ;  and  yet  they  came  in  and  interposed 
betAveen  Cxxtholics  and  this  money  Avhich  they  wanted  for  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  their  OAvn  poor  children  Avho  could  not  be  educated  at  those 
schools  without  violating  the  sacred  rights  of  American  citizens. 
[Applaxise.]  It  was  xxnnecessary  for  him  to  enlai-ge  much  furtheiv 
He  had  no  Avant  of  respect  for  the  Public  School  Society,  but  it  Avas 
vain  in  them  to  saj  that  Catholics  impeached  their  motives,  or  that 
when  Catholics  objected  to  the  system  they  objected  to  them  per¬ 
sonally.  Catholics  could  not  certxxinly  recognize  in  them  the  poAver 
of  the  State ;  and  with  such  documents  and  books  as  those  he  had 
referre  I  to  they  could  not  sxxbniit  to  the  system  notAvithstanding 


76 


AECHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


the  Public  School  Society  could  see  nothing  in  it  objectionable  to 
Catholics.  The  question  was  a  simple  one  and  did  not  require  much 
deep  investigation  of  facts  to  determine  what  should  be  the  issue. 
Enough  was  seen  before  this  discussion  commenced  in  the  sacrifices 
of  the  poor  Catholics — for  they  were  comparatively  poor — to  make 
room  ixnder  their  churches  for  the  education  of  their  children  (while 
they  were  paying  taxes  like  other  citizens)  apart  from  the  instruc¬ 
tion  which  taught  them  of  the  “  deceitful  Catholics”  who  burnt  Iver¬ 
sons  at  the  stake.  This  proved  that  it  was  no  affectation  on  the 
part  of  Catholics,  but  that  their  consciences  prompted  them  to  make 
sacrifices  to  multiply  schools — to  take  into  their  own  hands  the 
burden  of  giving  an  education  to  children,  imperfect  as  it  must  be, 
with  their  means,  to  3,000,  4,000,  or  8,000.  children  at  a  double  ex¬ 
pense.  For  they  first  paid  to  the  State,  but  seeing  the  advantages 
come  back  so  diluted,  they  paid  a  second  time  to  secure  education 
without  insult  to  their  religious  faith.  It  was  conscience  then  and 
not  affectation  which  prompted  them  to  do  this,  and  whatever  might 
be  the  result  with  the  proper  authorities  one  thing  was  certain,  that 
with  those  schools,  so  constituted.  Catholics  could  have  no  commu¬ 
nion.  [Applause.]  If,  according  to  the  spirit  of  legislation  on  this 
subject,  their  proportion  of  this  money  was  set  apart  in  a  manner 
that  Catholics  could  avail  themselves  of  it,  they  would  accejvt  it  with 
gratitude :  if  they  would  give  them  a  place  to  educate  their  children 
in,  or  if  they  would  even  organize  their  schools,  they  should  be  satis¬ 
fied.  To  the  system,  that  is,  the  machinery  of  the  system  of  educa¬ 
tion,  Catholics  did  not  object ;  and  they  should  give  proof  that  they 
wished  no  opportunity  to  peculate,  nor  should  be  guilty  if  they  hacl, 
of  jveculation  of  these  funds.  Let  them  give  to  Catholics  their  own 
books,  and  they  would  be  content  if  the  minds  of  their  children  were 
not  poisoned  against  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  for  which  for  ages 
those  fathers  had  been  ready  to  die.  [Applause.]  If  this  were  done 
Catholics  would  be  grateful,  but  in  their  gratitude  they  should  tell 
those  gentlemen  that  it  was  nothing  more  than  that  to  which  they 
were  entitled.  [Hear,  hear.]  But  if  this  should  be  refused,  they  would 
but  be  still  as  they  are  at  present;  and  many  of  them  were  not 
strangers  to  inequality  and  oppression  which  would  strive  to  make 
them  less  than  their  fellow-citizens.  But  let  it  come  to  this  that 
either  they  would  have  the  benefit  of  education  according  to  their 
religious  convictions,  or  that  those  refusing  it  should  say,  “  you  shall 
not,  and  for  no  other  reason  but  because  you  are  Catholics.”  That 
should  be  the  ultimate  issue;  let  the  question  be  reduced  down  to 
that ;  and  if  the  day  was  at  hand  when  the  public  authorities  of 
America  would  ofter  such  violence  to  conscience,  and  debar  them 
of  their  rights  as  citizens,  then  they  might  despair  of  the  Bepublic. 
But  he  liad  no  apprehensions  of  that  kind.  As  he  had  said  before, 
several  times,  whatever  might  be  the  misconception  or  the  want  of 
inlbi-mation  or  wrong  information  or  prejudice  on  the  subject — • 
making  allowance  for  all  this — there  was  running  through  the  public 
mind  a  vein,  a  rich  vein  of  public  equity  which  would  not  allow  the 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOK. 


11 


Catholics  thus  to  he  deprived  of  their  rights,  [Applause.]  But 
still  he  was  not  surprised  at  the  misrepresentations  of  the  Journal  of 
Commerce  and  of  the  Churchman,,  or  any  other  paper.  It  wms  sur¬ 
prising  that  there  was  not  more  misrepresentation,  when  they  con¬ 
sidered  the  way  their  fellow-citizens  were  taught,  and  when  they 
reflected  that  they  w^ere  brought  up  at  the  same  literary  table  where 
they  imbibed  with  their  aliment  a  prejudice  which  an  acquaintance 
with  Catholics  for  life,  of  men  honorable  and  high  minded,  was 
scarcely  able  to  destroy.  What  remained  for  them  was  simply  to 
persevere — with  moderation  and  dignity,  but  with  a  firmness  wor¬ 
thy  of  their  standing  in  the  American  community — persevering  with 
great  moderation,  but  at  the  same  time  with  great  dignity  and  great 
flrmness,  narrowing  the  question  down  until  the  two  issues  he  had 
mentioned  j^resented  themselves  alone,  and  they  obtained  that  of 
which  hitherto  they  had  been  denied.  [Applause.]  Yes,  this  was 
the  course  that  was  left  for  them.  He  himself  had  no  objection  if 
the  whole  Public  School  Society  were  there  to  hear  all  he  had  to 
say ;  for  in  all  he  had  said  in  either  public  or  private,  as  far  as  he 
remembered,  he  always  se^^arated  men  from  things — he  always  sep¬ 
arated  the  men  connected  with  this  school  system  from  that  which 
was  the  legitimate  subject  of  criticism.  He  had  therefore  separated 
the  public  school  and  the  teachers,  but  when  they  sent  books  of  this 
description,  and  when  Catholics  contended  for  their  rights  on  Chris¬ 
tian  principles,  they  were  told  there  was  no  cause  of  complaint, 
justice  required  that  they  should  animadvert  on  the  subject  so  far 
as  was  necessary  to  vindicate  themselves,  but  no  further.  He  knew 
that  was  not  the  place  to  enter  upon  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
lesson  on  “JohnHuss.”  They  knew  the  crime  for  which  he  suf¬ 
fered  ;  it  had  been  on  the  statute  books  for  more  than  six  hundred 
years,  as  far  back  as  Justinian  even.  It  Avas  a  barbarous,  a  cruel 
punishment ;  but  if  so,  the  gentlemen  should  have  known  that  it  Avas 
not  Catholics  that  inflicted  it  but  the  laAV  of  the  empire  to  Avhich  he 
was  subject.  He  might  mention  that  he  had  the  opportunity  once 
to  meet  a  Protestant  gentleman  in  an  assembly  as  large  as  this ;  that 
AA'hen  he  pressed  him  for  proof  he  had  none  to  give  :  and  Avhen  he 
Avent  further  and  brought  the  case  of  ,Iohn  IIuss,  not  from  a  Cath¬ 
olic  but  from  a  Presbyterian  writer  aaJio  Avrote  the  history  of  the 
Council  of  Constance,  the  Catholics  Avere  acquitted  and  the  Emperor 
alone  Avas  implicated,  because  it  Avas  believed  he  betrayed  Huss,  to 
Avhom  it  Avas  supposed  he  had  given  a  free  pass.  But  L’Enfant  tells 
ATS  that  before  IIuss  Avent  to  the  Council  the  Emperor  told  him  if 
the  Council  pronounced  his  doctrines  heresy,  and  he  did  not  retract, 
he  must  sufter  the  penalty  of  the  laAV,  and  he  (the  Emperor)  Avould 
be  the  first  to  apply  the  torch.  But  they  miglit  as  Avell  attempt  to 
run  the  stream  of  Niagara  back  as  to  tell  this.  This  Avas  shoAvn, 
hoAveA^er,  in  th.e  presence  of  a  I’resbyterian  clergyman.  It  Avas 
printed  and  published  in  the  report  of  that  discussion,  and  to  tlie 
present  time  he  has  had  not  one  Avord  to  say  on  the  subject.  He 
repeated,  this  AA^as  not  the  place  to  bring  up  things  of  this  kind,  but 


78 


AECHBISHOP  nUGHEB. 


what  must  be  his  feelings  when  he  saw  such  things  in  these  school 
books,  and  this  barbing  of  the  arrow  against  the  Catholic  religion, 
when  he  knew  they  were  not  true.  Even  if  true  they  should  not  be 
put  into  the  hands  of  children ;  nor  should  Catholics  if  they  taught 
their  own  children  let  them  read  as  a  lesson  a  chapter  on  the  burn¬ 
ing  of  Michael  Servetus  by  Calvin.  If  these  things  were  true  they 
should  not  be  admitted,  for  it  was  not  right  to  prejudice  one  class 
against  another.  But  when  they  saw  these  things  in  the  books  of 
the  public  schools  it  was  not  surprising  tbat  they  spoke  with  empha¬ 
sis,  or,  as  the  Churchman  has  it,  that  they  should  be  a  little  bold, 
[Great  applause.] 

Mr.  MuLLEiSr  rose  and  said :  “  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  a  vote  of 
thanks  to  the  Editor  of  the  Freeman'' s  Journal  for  the  trouble  he  has 
gone  to,  and  expense  he  has  incurred,  in  publishing  an  ''’'Extra'"'  con¬ 
taining;  the  Address,  and  for  the  uniform  interest  he  has  taken  in  this 
cause  from  the  commencement.”  A  gentleman,  who  sat  in  front  of 
the  Bishop,  said  that  if  a  vote  of  thanks  was  passed,  it  was  first  due 
to  the  Bishop  for  his  untiring  exertions. 

The  Bishop  rose  and  said :  “  I  will  offer  a  simple  observation  on 
this  subject ;  certainly,  Mr.  White,  the  Editor  of  the  Freeman's  Jour¬ 
nal,  is  entitled  to  a  vote  of  thanks,  and  I  think  it  worthy  of  the  gen¬ 
tleman  who  has  proposed  it ;  but  at  the  same  time  there  are  so  many 
who  may  be  entitled  to  the  same  distinction,  in  one  form  or  another, 
that  perhaps  it  might  be  thought  a  little  invidious  if  one  should  be 
selected  and  another  not.  I  am  sure  Mr.  White  will  feel  highly 
rewarded  by  the  consciousness  that  he  has  been  at  all  instrumental 
in  helping  the  cause  forward,  and  at  a  later  period,  when  we  have 
ajiproached  nearer  to  the  accomplishment  of  our  wishes,  the  opportu¬ 
nity  may  present  itself  for  such  compliments.  But  at  the  same  time, 
while  I  acknowledge  the  kindness  and  the  propriety  of  feeling 
w"hich  dictated  it,  at  this  moment  I  think  it  would  be  better  to 
omit  it.  Mr.  White,  you  know,  is  a  Catholic  like  ourselves  and  feels 
the  interest  that  we  all  feel,  and  if  you  commence  this,  the  first  vote 
will  perhaps  be  due  to  the  Editor  of  a  daily  paper  in  this  city  who  is 
not  a  Catholic,  but  who  has  had  the  spirit  and  sense  of  justice  to 
come  out  in  our  favor.  [Applause.]  But  even  in  this  case  I  should 
not  be  for  moving  a  Amte  of  thanks,  for  I  am  sure  he  Avas  actuated 
by  a  sense  of  public  duty,  and  in  that  consciousness  he  Avill  feel  his 
reward.  We  should  not  be  ungrateful,  but  for  the  jiresent  I  would 
suggest  the  propriety  of  AvithdraAving  the  motion.” 

Mr.  Mullex".  Mr.  White  has  gone  to  great  expense  in  publishing 
an  Extra  and  has  ably  advocated  our  cause,  for  Avhich  he  is  entitled  to 
our  thanks ;  but  I  consent  to  withdraw  the  motion.  [Applause.] 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


19 


LETTER  OF  BISHOP  HUGHES  TO  THE 
EVENHSTG  POST. 


The  following  letter  of  the  Right  Reverend  Bishoj)  Hughes  was 
written  in  answ^er  to  an  anonymous  communication  addressed  to 
him,  which  appeared  it  the  Evening  Post,  signed  “An  Irish  Catholic,” 
slandering  the  motives  of  the  Catholics,  and  charging  the  Bishop 
with  being  the  dupe  of  one  of  the  political  parties  of  the  day : 

Mr.  Editoe:  Your  correspondent  who  signs  himself  “An  Irish 
Catholic,”  and  dedicates  his  homily  to  me  by  name,  must  he  a  very 
inconsistent  man.  He  must  know  that  thousands  of  the  children 
of  poor  Catholic  parents  are  growing  up  without  education,  simply 
because  the  law  as  interpreted  and  administrated  under  the  Public 
School  Society,  requires  a  violation  of  their  rights  of  conscience. 
The  number  of  such  children  may  be  from  nine  to  twelve  thousand. 
Of  these  the  Catholics,  by  bearing  a  double  taxation,  educate  four 
or  five  thousand ;  a  few  hundred  have  attended  the  Public  Schools ; 
and  the  rest  may  be  considered  as  receiving  only  such  e’ducation  as 
is  afforded  in  the  streets  of  New  York. 

Now  I  should  think  that  an  “Irish  Catholic ’\should  see  in  this 
state  of  things  quite  enough  to  excite  my  pastoral  solicitude  for 
the  spiritual  and  moral  condition  ,  of  the  ])eople  committed  to  my 
charge.  In  the  part  which  I  have  taken  in  the  matter,  I  am  only 
discharging  a  conscientious  duty. 

But  it  appears  that  your  correspondent  understands  my  duty 
better  than  I  do,  and  that  I  am  only  the  well-meaning  dvpe  of  a 
‘^Vhig  club  in  disguise,”  notwithstanding  the  “great  abilities” 
which  he  is  pleased  to  ascribe  to  me.  When  I  returned  to  this 
city,  I  found  the  Catholics  broken  up  and  divided,  thanks  to  the  in¬ 
terference  of  such  men  as  your  correspondent.  Now,  happily,  that 
the  question  has  been  relieved  from  all  the  dead  weight  of  poli¬ 
ticians  of  either  side,  they  are  united.  Y/e  exclude  politics  from 
our  deliberations,  as  carefully  as  religion  is  excluded  from  the  Public 
Schools.  W e  are  composed  of  all  parties  in  politics ;  but  as  the 
topic  is  never  introduced  nor  alluded  to,  there  is  no  occasion  for 
disagreement.  We  meet  to  understand  the  injuries  which  we  are 
compelled  to  sufter,  and  to  seek  for  their  removal.  Among  the 
sufferers  are  men  of  both  parties — among  those  who  would  perpetu¬ 
ate  the  injuries,  are  men  of  both  parties — and  our  object  is  to  seek 
justice  from  just  and  upright  men,  who  will  comprehend  our  griev¬ 
ances,  without  distinction  of  party. 


60 


AECHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


But  it  appears  that  the  Catholics  are  to  rest  satisfied  with  what- 
es^er  injustice  may  be  inflicted  on  them,  lest  their  complaining 
should  be  construed  into  a  “political  purpose.”  If  so,  there  re¬ 
mains  nothing  for  them  but  to  endure  in  silence.  Is  that  'v^hat  this 
“  Irish  Catholic  ”  requires  ?  The  Catholics  are  divided  in  their 
politics ;  it  is  their  right  to  be  so.  But  on  the  question  of  public 
education,  in  the  city  of  Ncm'’  York,  there  is  not  a  Catholic  who  is 
acquainted  with  the  subject,  and  deserving  the  name,  who  is  not  of 
the  same  mind.  I  doubt  much  whether  your  correspondent  is  one 
of  the  number. 

He  is  extremely  liberal  of  imputations  against  the  Catholics  for 
preferring  Avhat  he  admits  to  be  their  “  rightful  claims.”  But  he 
has  forgotten  to  get  any  respectable  voucher  to  endorse  the  purity 
of  his  motives  in  opposing  them.  He  calls  one  of  the  parties  into 
Avhich  the  country  is  divided  “  our  natural  enemies.”  I  do  not 
know  what  such  expressions  mean  in  the  slang  of  politicians,  but 
there  is  no  class  of  enemies  of  whom  the  Catholics  shbuld  be  more 
on  their  guard  than  of  such  as  would  traflic  on  their  creed  and 
country  in  order  to  get  their  votes — men  who  in  periods  of  political 
excitement  become  more  Irish  than  the  Irish  themselves,  and  more 
orthodox  than  the  Church ;  Avhilst  to  both  they  are  little  less  than  a 
permanent  scandal  at  all  other  seasons.  Can  your  correspondent 
show  me  a  certificate  from  any  pastor  of  ISTew  York,  that  he  hff^ 
complied  with  his  religious  duties  as  a  Catholic  within  the  last 
seven  years?  He  is  a  political  Catholic,  just  as  Lelande,  although 
an  atheist,  professed  himself  a  Catholic  atheist. 

Now  I  charge  upon  your  correspondent  the  attempt  to  defeat 
those  claims  whicii  he  acknowledges  to  be  just.  And  yet  he  is  ap¬ 
prehensive,  forsooth,  that  I  shall  narrow  the  sj^here  of  my  useful¬ 
ness  by  supporting  those  just  claims,  and  doing  so  without  giving 
any  op2:)ortunities  for  political  demagogues  of  either  party  to  carry 
divisions  into  our  union.  Let  him  not  be  uneasy.  If  he  be  an 
“  Irish  Catholic,”  his  communication  proves  that  he  must  have  be¬ 
come  very  “  enlightened  ”  since  he  arrived  in  this  country.  The 
manual  of  politics  must  have  superseded  the  Council  of  Trent  in 
his  mind. 

He  is  not  even  a  good  reasoner,  nor  in  my  mind  a  clever  poli¬ 
tician.  He  acknowledges  the  claims  of  the  Catholics  to  be  just, 
and  yet  he  denominates  their  efforts  in  urging  those  claims  a  “  pious 
fraud.”  He  knows  that  the  Catholic  public  are  unanimous  in  their 
determination  to  prosecute  their  “rightful  claims,”  and  yet  he  asserts 
that  they  will  receive  from  the  Catholic  public  {i.  e.  themselves)  “that 
contempt  which  they  deserve.” 

Even  the  party  which  he  affects  to  support  cannot  escape  the 
havoc  of  his  hasty  logic.  He  tells  us  that  our  better  hope  of  justice 
will  be  from  his  party,  “  when  in  power,”  as  if  nothing  but  power 
was  wanting,  when  they  refused  those  claims  last  spring.  They  had 
the  power  and  refused  to  exercise  it.  Wliat  more  could  our  “natural 
enemies  ”  do  ?  But  I  will  save  him  from  the  consequences  of  his 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOIT. 


81 


vitaoiis  reasoning  by  observing  that  the  Common  Council,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  not  understanding  our  claims  as  they  should  have  been 
set  forth  and  understood,  made  a  false  issue — and  refused  what  we  do 
not  ask,  viz.,  public  money  for  Catholic  education.  I  believe  that 
•had  they  understood  our  grievance  simply  as  they  exist,  they  would 
have  come  to  a  different  conclusion.  Consequently,  in  connection 
with  the  subject  of  Public  School  Education,  it  is  not  necessary  for 
any  Catholic  to  change  his  political  party,  although  they  are  free  to 
do  so  if  they  choose. 

I  regret  exceedingly,  Mr.  Editor,  to  be  obliged  to  trespass  upon 
the  limits  of  your  valuable  paper,  or  to  appear  before  the  public  in 
reply  to  a  correspondent  who  conceals  his  name,  and  adopts  a  signa¬ 
ture  of  which,  in  the  present  instance,  I  believe  him  to  be  altogether  un¬ 
worthy.  I  have  had  no  connection  with  political  parties — I  shall  have 
none.  They  are  much  less  important  in  my  mind  than  the  salvation 
of  one  child  from  spiritual  and  moral  ruin.  I  see  thousands  of  the 
children  of  our  poor  Catholics  exposed  to  both;  and  1  appeal  to  just, 
and  humane,  and  patriotic  men  of  all  parties,  to  aid  me  in  effecting 
their  rescue. 

It  coixld  not  be,  therefore,  without  much  pain  that  I  saw  my 
name  pinnacled  at  the  head  of  a  political  appeal  by  a  partisan  in 
politics,  who  professes  by  his  signature  to  be  a  member  of  my 
flock.  I  look  upon  it  as  an  attack  upon  me,  as  an  attack  upon  the 
efforts  of  the  Catholic  body  to  secure  their  rights  of  education  to 
the  children,  without  prejudice  to  the  dearer  rights  of  conscience. 
Let  your  correspondent  or  any  other  respectable  person  write  over 
his  own  signature,  and  not  as  a  political  partisan,  and  I  am  prepared 
to  meet  him  on  the  whole  question.  But  as  for  anonymous  attacks, 
I  hope  the  present  communication  will  relieve  me  from  the  necessity 
of  noticing  them  in  future. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

^  JOHN  HUGHES, 

Bishop,  Coadjutor  and  Administrator 
of  New  York. 

New  York,  September  3,  1840. 


Meeting  in  the  Basement  of  St.  James’  Church,  Septem¬ 
ber  7,  1840. 

On  Monday,  the  7th  September,  the  largest  and  most  numerously 
attended  meeting  of  the  Catholics  which  had  yet  been  held  on  the 
subject  of  Common  School  Education,  convened  in  the  basement 
of  St.  James’  Church.  The  meeting  having  been  called  to  order, 
Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  was  unanimously  elected  to  preside  over 
their  deliberations,  and  the  secretaries  appointed  on  former  occasions 
were  asain  re-elected  to  that  office.  After  the  minutes  of  the  last 
6 


82 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


meeting  had  been  read  and  approved,-  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Hughes 
rose  and  was  received  with  great  and  enthnsiastie  cheering. 

After  the  plaudits  had  subsided  the  Bishop  proposed*  to  the 
meeting,  for  their  adoption,  two  resolutions  designed  foi‘  the  regu¬ 
lation  of  their  proceedings  in  discussing  the  important  subject* 
which  had  called  them  together.  The  object  of  the  resolutions, 'he 
said,  was  to  recognize  the  pi’opriety  of  adhering  strictly,  in  all  re¬ 
marks  that  should  be  offered  to  the  meeting,  to  the  question  before 
them,  and  to  induce  gentlemen  who  should  favor  the  meeting  with 
the  expression  of  their  sentiments,  to  give  to  the  subject  that  careful 
consideration  which  its  importance  required. 

The  resolutions  were  then  proposed  and  unanimously  adopted ; 
and  the  Bishop  continued.  All  present,  he  said,  wmuld  at  once  un¬ 
derstand  the  peculiar  propriety,  if  not  necessity,  which  existed  for 
the  adoption  of  these  resolutions ;  narrowly  watched  as  their  move¬ 
ments  were  on  all  sides  by  many  who  were  ready  to  pervert  ■what¬ 
ever  might  be  said,  and  to  impeach  the  purity  of  their  motives  and 
intentions,  a  more  than  ordinary  degree  of  circumspection  wjfs 
necessary.  In  other  places,  and  at  meetings  held  for  the  discussion 
of  other  questions  of  public  concern,  a  greater  degree  of  latitude 
was  allowed,  and  so  strict  a  scrutiny  of  whatever  might  fall  from 
gentlemen  in  the  excitement  of  public  speaking  was  not  instituted — 
but  if  any  person  at  our  meetings,  continued  the  Bishop,  should 
make  a  slip,  or  inadvertently  say  anything  that  was  susceptible  of 
misrepresentation,  it  was  immediately  seized  upon.  Our  meetings 
here,  although  not  political  meetings,  are  yet  composed  of  persons 
of  every  variety  of  political  ojiinion.  But  these  political  opinions 
are  all  repressed  here ;  they  are  not  suffered  to  influence  the  con¬ 
duct  or  sentiments  of  any  one,  although  they  are  not  abandoned  nor 
laid  aside.  A  man  cannot  lay  down  his  opinions  on  entering  this 
room,  as  he  would  lay  down  his  coat.  He  carries  his  feelings  and 
his  opinions  with  him ;  they  form  part  of  his  identity,  but  they  are 
not  allowed  to  influence  him  on  this  subject.  Our  meetings  are  not 
then  political ;  we  meet  for  the  purjiose  of  examining  and  investi¬ 
gating  this  important  subject ;  for  the  purpose  of  extracting  light 
that  we  may  see,  and  understand,  and  be  enabled  to  vindicate  our 
rights.  Neither  should  it  be  wondered  at  by  political  men  that  we 
should  assemble  here  to  discuss  the  question  of  our  riglits,  and  that 
we  should  complain  of  our  grievances.  They  need  not  be  aston¬ 
ished  when  they  witness*  it.  If  they  tickle  us  we  must  laugh — if 
they  bruise  us  we  must  complain  ;  when  a  cause  exists  they  must 
look  for  the  effect,  and  need  not  be  surj)rised  to  find  it.  And  of  all 
considerations  that  can  press  anxiously  upon  the  public  mind,  the 
present  system  of  education  in  the  Public  Schools  of  this  city  is  the 
most  important,  both  as  it  I'egards  the  present  and  the  future  wel¬ 
fare  of  those  Avho  are  subjected  to  its  influence.  It  is  my  intention 
this  evening  to  review'  tliis  subject  briefly. 

Wh.at  is  the  question,  Mr.  President,  w'hich  presents  itself  to  ua 
on  examining  this  subject  ? 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


83 


The  State  of  New  York,  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  moral 
and  intellectual  condition  of  the  people,  has  appropriated  a  certain 
fund  for  effecting  that  object ;  some  one  who  has  professed  to 
understand  the  law,  has  declared  that  it  was  intended  to  aid  in 
diffusing  the  threefold  blessings  of  religion,  morality,  and  education. 
But  by  the  present  Public  School  System  in  this  city,  two  of  these 
ends  are  set  at  naught.  That  system  does  not  indeed  say  in  express 
terms  that  it  is  opposed  to  religion — it  only  declares  that  it  is 
opposed  to  sectarianism.  But  sectarianism  in  this  country  means 
the  whole  body  of  Christianity.  By  the  Constitution  there  can  be 
no  established  religion,  but  all  sects  are  held  alike,  and  the  general 
body  of  Christians  is  made  up  of  all  those  sects,  and  when  you 
exclude  the  sects  or  sectarianism  you  exclude  Christianity.  The 
object  of  this  law  was  to  aid  in  the  inculcation  of  religion ;  but  as 
it  is  now  interpreted  to  mean  religion  without  sectarianism,  it  oper¬ 
ates,  as  I  have  shown,  to  exclude  that  for  which  it  was  professed 
to  be  established ;  it  excludes  the  two  prior  ends  for  the  attainment 
of  which  it  was  designed — religion  and  morality — for  religion  forms 
the  whole  basis  of  the  moral  character,  and  without  it  education  is 
but  a  dry  and  barren  gift— good  for  nothing — and  worse  still,  being 
often,  as  we  daily  see,  only  a  source  of  ignominy  and  deeper  shame. 
Here,  then,  is  the  position  in  which  we  are  placed.  We  are  required 
to  sid)mit  to  a  system  which  in  fact  promotes  irreligion.  But  the 
Constitution  forbids  the  teaching  of  irreligion  by  the  State  as 
positively  as  it  forbids  the  teaching  of  any  creed  of  sectarianism. 
It  is  as  great  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  sacred  rights 
of  conscience,  which  it  guarantees  to  all  alike,  to  support  irreligion,  as 
it  is  to  support  any  particular  Christian  creed.  But  by  the  management 
and  the  theory  now  recognized  by  the  public  authorities,  a  state  of 
things  is  brought  about  in  which  we  see  a  great  overgrown  monopoly, 
a  false  monopoly — grasping  at  all  the  public  money — assuming  to 
itself  the  exclusive  right  to  control  and  direct  popular  instruction — 
dealing  out  education  according  to  its  own  notions — setting  parents 
and  guardians,  and  all  who  have  a  natural  or  moral  right  to  interfere 
in  the  question  of  the  education  of  their  children,  at  naught — and 
all  upon  the  bold  pretense  that  the  religious  tendency  of  other  sys¬ 
tems  is  a  disqualification  for  them  to  claim  a  share  in  the  business 
of  public  education.  From  beginning  to  end  this  is  their  argument, 
in  fact,  that  religion  is  a  disqualification,  and  that  the  absence  of 
religion  in  their  system  qualifies  them  to  become  the  exclusiA^e 
teachers  of  the  youth  of  the  country — to  acquire  a  monojDoly  of  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  public  instructors. 

And  now,  sir,  I  have  some  public  documents  connected  with  this 
subject,  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention.  The  first  of  these  is 
the  “  Keport  of  the  Commissioners  of  School  Money,  for  the  Year 
1840,”  ordered  to  be  printed  and  placed  on  file  by  the  Board  of  Al¬ 
dermen  of  this  city,  on  July  27,  1840. 

After  a  very  meagre  statement  of  the  proceedings,  for  a  whole 
year,  of  the  institutions  subject  to  their  supervision,  we  come  to 


84 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


the  concluding  part  of  their  report,  where  we  find  the  follow¬ 
ing: 

“  The  Commissioners,  in  closing  this  rejjort,  refer  with  satisfaction  to  the  recent 
decision  of  the  Board  of  Assistants,  by  which  a  renewal  of  ecclesiastical  connec¬ 
tions  with  the  Common  School  System  in  this  city  has  been  unanimously 
denied.” 

Pray,  what  “  ecclesiastical  connections  ?”  asked  the  Bishop ;  I 
know  of  none  that  were  sought  for  or  desired ;  I  have  heard  of 
none.  But  it  answered  a  purpose  to  use  these  terms.  The  odium 
of  foreign  ecclesiastical  connections  upon  the  city  authorities  would, 
if  it  could  he  fastened  upon  the  Catholics,  go  far  towards  defeating 
their  just  claims.  They  asked  to  be  allowed  to  participate  without 
violating  their  sacred  rights  of  conscience  in  the  benefits  of  this 
public  fund  towards  which  they  had  contributed,  and  they  are  on 
the  instant  accused  of  seeking  to  impose  upon  the  State  “  ecclesias¬ 
tical  connections,”  and  an  appeal  is  thus  made  against  them  to  un¬ 
worthy  prejudices  by  their  opponents,  instead  of  reposing  themselves 
upon  the  eternal  rock  of  Truth,  and  looking  to  the  polar  star  of 
Justice  as  their  guide  in  this  important  matter. 

No;  they  prefer  to  invent  an  imaginary  case  in  order  to  ground 
upon  it  an  appeal  to  popular  prejudice ;  for  I  have  never  yet  heard 
or  understood  that  the  gentlemen  who  presented  themselves  before 
the  Common  Council  on  behalf  of  the  Catholics,  sought  for  any 
money  for  ecclesiastical  purposes,  for  any  ecclesiastical  connection. 

Never,  sir!”  exclaimed  some  of  the  gentlemen  referred  to.] 
Ilow  can  they  then — how  can  these  Commissioners,  continued  the 
Bishop,  talk  of  an  ecclesiastical  connection  Avhich  was  never  asked 
for  nor  desired — which  was  never  contemplated,  nor  ever  entered 
into  any  person’s  mind  but  their  own — which  never  at  least  entered 
into  the  mind  of  a  single  Catholic  on  this  subject  ?  But  to  proceed 
with  their  report : 

“  Without  adverting  to  inflexible  political  maxims,  which  forbid  such  an  union, 
the  Commissioners  believe  that  practically  it  would  be  offensive  to  tlie  public 
feeling.” 

Not  to  justice,  exclaimed  the  Bishop,  no — but  “  public  feeling !” 
They  will  not  speak  the  truth,  and  declare  that  we  are  a  people 
with  eight  or  ten  thousand  children  deprived  of  education  for  which 
we  have  paid  our  money  into  the  public  treasury,  and  from  the 
benefits  of  which  those  children  are  excluded  because  we  will  not 
outrage  our  consciences.  No,  they  will  not  say  this,  because  this 
would  not  help  their  system,  nor  justify  their  conduct  with  the 
public ;  they  will  not  advert  to  the  principles  of  truth  or  justice  or 
inflexible  political  maxims,  but  to  public  feeling — to  prejudices  ;  and 
if  they  can  make  out  that  the  Catholics  Avant  an  ecclesiastical  con¬ 
nection,  these  popular  prejudices  are  excited  and  their  faA'orite  sys¬ 
tem  sustained. 

Here  the  Bishop  again  read  from  the  report : 

“  Without  adverting  to  inflexible  political  maxims  which  forbid  such  an  union. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


85 


the  Commissioners  helieve  that  practically  it  would  be  offensive  to  the  public  feel¬ 
ing;  unequal  in  its  benefit  to  the  various  religious  denominations;  and  destructive, 
perliaps,  to  the  cause,  now  so  fiourisliing,  of  free  and  general  education.” 

How  can  they,  said  the  Bishop,  call  it  free,  where  ten  thousand 
of  the  children  of  the  city  are  excluded,  by  the  bad  principles  involved 
in  this  Public  School  System,  from  a  participation  of  the  benefits 
which  it  would  confer  if  wisely  administered  ? 

The  Bishop  then  continued  from  the  report ; 

“  Should  the  school  moneys  be  dispensed  among  the  seminaries,  the  first  qualifi¬ 
cation  of  whose  teachers  is  sectarian  orthodoxy,  and  wherein  prescribed  forms  are 
inculcated,  to  which  the  assent  of  no  entire  neighborhood  within  the  city  could 
be  expected, — ” 

I  have  not  heard,  said  the  Bishop,  that  any  such  distribution  of 
the  school  moneys  was  proposed  or  asked  for ;  but  how  these  ad¬ 
vocates  of  the  Public  School  Society  have  lived  by  sectarianism — 
which  seems  to  be  the  beginning  and  the  end  and  the  whole  bur¬ 
then  of  all  that  they  can  say  in  commendation  of  themselves!  We 
are  no  friends  of  sectarianism.  But  it  is  not  the  business  of  the 
State  to  interfere  with  it.  Every  man  has  a  political  right  to  be  a 
sectarian  ;  and  if  we  begin  by  excluding  sectarian  teaching  from  the 
Public  Schools,  by  and  by  the  same  authority  may  creep  into  the 
Church,  and  exclude  all  sectarianism  there.  Every  man  has  a  right  to 
freedom  of  conscience,  to  sectarianism,  if  they  please  to  call  it  so. 
And  it  is  against  this  freedom  of  conscience  that  this  Public  School 
Society  ai-e  arraying  themselves,  taking  from  us  our  money,  and 
forcing  upon  us  a  system  of  education  at  which  our  consciences 
revolt.  [Great  applause.] 

But  to  return  to  the  Commissioners . 

— “  it  is  to  be  feared,”  they  say,  “  that  such  a  distribution  would  be  regarded  as 
inconsistent  with  the  common  rights  whieh  the  present  scheme  of  public  instruction 
professes  to  secure.” 

How'  anxious  they  are  I  They  raise  up  a  fabric  of  dangerous  de¬ 
signs  that  had  no  existence  but  in  their  own  imagination,  and  then 
make  a  display  of  their  public  zeal  by  denouncing  it.  Why  did 
they  not  look  at  the  reality,  and  tell  the  Common  Council  that  it 
W'as  a  grievance  for  Catholics  to  pay  taxes  for  the  support  of  a  com¬ 
mon  system  of  education,  and  then  to  be  excluded  from  that  system 
and  obliged  to  pay  again  for  the  education  of  their  own  poor  ?  But 
no,  instead  of  that,  they  make  out  an  imaginary  case  in  order  to 
justify  the  course  which  they  have  pursued,  and  waste  their  paper 
in  describing  dangers  which  were  no  where  to  be  seen.  But  I  have 
repeatedly  shown  that  this  sectarianism  is  nothing  else  than  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  that  therefore  the  exclusion  of  it  is  the  exclusion  of 
Christianity.  If  this  is  not  the  design  of  those  who  have  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  this  public  fund,  if  they  are  sincere  in  their  professions 
of  regard  for  religion,  and  that  they  desire  that  the  youthful  mind 
of  the  country  should  be  imbued  w'ith  its  spirit,  why  require  the 
public  moneys  to  be  given  to  the  support  of  a  system  that  can  only 


86 


AECHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


aid  in  producing  subjects  for  infidelity,  already  so  rampant  in  tha 
land. 

I  knoAV,  sir,  of  the  case  of  an  individual,  he  was  one  who  lived 
long,  and  who  carried  Avith  him  in  his  mind  but  one  single  idea, 
that  was  the  idea  of  the  length  and  breadth  of  a  dollar.  And  by 
turning  that  one  idea  OA^er  and  over,  he  doubled  and  multiplied  it, 
and  Avhen  in  his  old  age  he  died,  he  died  Avorth  fifteen  millions  of 
dollars.  That  man  AAnas  Stephen  Girard,  of  Philadelphia.  lie  made 
a  Avill  and  appropriated  a  large  portion  of  his  wealth  to  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  orphans.  In  that  will  there  is  a  clause  of  a  genius  so  similar 
to  the  spirit  of  our  Public  School  Society,  that  one  Avould  suppose 
they  had  both  derived  their  philosophy  from  the  same  source.  I 
Avill  read  it  for  you — I  have  the  entire  will  here  Avith  me.  This  is 
the  clause : 

“  Secondly,  I  enjoin  and  require  that  no  ecclesiastical  missionary  or  minister  of  any 
sect  whatsoever  shall  ever  hold  or  exercise  any  station  whatsoever  in  the  said  college  ; 
nor  shall  any  such  person  ever  be  admitted  for  any  purpose,  or  as  a  visitor,  within  the 
premises  appropriated  to  the  purposes  of  the  said  college.  In  making  this  restriction 
1  do  not  mean  to  cast  any  reflection  upon  any  sect  or  person  whatsoever ;  l>ut  as 
there  is  such  a  multitude  of  sects,  and  such  a  diversity  of  opinion  amongst  them, 
I  desire  to  keep  the  tender  minds  of  the  orphans  [Oh,  the  merciful  Stephen  Girard  !] 
who  are  to  derive  advantage  from  this  bequest,  free  from  the  excitement  which 
clashing  doctrines  and  sectarian  controversy  are  so  apt  to  produce.” 

Almost  a  copy  word  for  Avord  of  the  doctrines  of  our  Public 
School  Society ;  only  that  as  Stephen  Girard  is  dead  some  eight  or 
ten  years,  and  must  haA^e  made  his  will  before  he  died,  Ave  might 
doubt  which  of  them,  Stephen  or  the  Public  School  Society,  Avas 
entitled  to  the  credit  of  originality  in  this  rigid  and  pertinacious  ex¬ 
clusion  of  all  sectar  ianism  from  their  system  of  education.  [Laughter.] 
But  the  Avill  continues  : 

“  My  desire  is  that  all  the  instructors  and  teachers  in  the  college  shall  take  pains 
to  instill  into  the  minds  of  the  scholars  the  purest  principles  of  morality,” — 

Just  as  the  gentlemen  of  the  Public  School  say.  But  Avhere  Avill 
you  get  morality  Avhen  you  exclude  religion  ? 

— “  so  that  on  their  entrance  into  life  they  may  from  inclination  and  habit  evince 
benevolence  towards  their  fellow  ci'eatures  and  a  love  of  truth,  sobriety,  and  industry, 
adopting  at  the  same  time  such  religious  tenets  as  their  matured  reason  may  enable 
them  to  prefer.” 

That  is,  said  the  Bishop,  regarding  the  mind  of  the  pupil  just  as 
you  Avould  a  machine,  Avhich  when  once  set  in  motion  Avould  con¬ 
tinue  on  Avithout  change  or  cessation,  that  Avould  be  so  long  accus¬ 
tomed  to  turn  on  one  particular  cog  that  it  would  continue  to  do  so 
for  ever  after.  [Laughter.] 

I  knoAV,  sir,  of  no  parallel  to  the  course  of  our  Public  School  So¬ 
ciety  biAt  this  individual  instance  of  Stephen  Girard.  But  the  par¬ 
allel  does  not  hold  good  throughout.  It  fails  in  one  important-point. 
There  Avas  this  difference,  that  if  he  had  his  OAvn  lAeculiar  notions  of 
education,  Stephen  paid  the  expenses  out  of  his  OAvn  pocket.  [Great 
laughter  and  applause.]  If  he  Avas  cruel  to  the  unhappy  orphan  and 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


87 


Wbhed  to  deprive  him  of  the  blessings  of  a  religious  education,  he 
was  willing,  so  far  is  pecuniary  considerations  were  involved,  to  be 
himself  tlie  victim  of  his  experiment.  But.  these  gentlemen  require 
you  to  pay  for  the  infliction  upon  you  of  the  evils  of  their  system. 
They  demand  to  be  made  the  exclusive  recipients  of  the  public 
money ;  that  it  shall  all  be  handed  over  to  them,  and  that  they  shall 
be  alloM'ed  to  give  you  in  return  just  such  a  system  of  education  as 
they  shall  be  pleased  to  provide,  no  matter  how  it  may  conflict  with 
your  rights  or  your  consciences.  [Great  applause.] 

I  will  now  offer  some  remarks  upon  some  other  public  documents 
connected,  with  this  subject  which  I  have  with  me  this  evening. 

In  document  No.  80,  of  the  records  or  proceedings  of  the  Common 
Council,  is  contained  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Common 
Council,  to  Avhom  the  claims  of  the  Catholics  to  a  portion  of  the 
Common  School  Fund  was  referred.  In  this  Report  the  Committee 
draw  a  distinction  between  the  name  “  Incorporated  Religious  So¬ 
cieties,”  Avho  under  the  old  law  had  an  absolute  right  to  the  fund, 
and  the  term  “  societies,”  as  used  in  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  come 
to  the  conchision  that  a  religious  incorporated  society  is  not  a  “  so¬ 
ciety,”  within  the  meaning  of  the  new  law.  But  Ave  Avill  not  be  par¬ 
ticular  about  terms,  and  if  they  Avill  deny  it  to  us  as  a  “  Society,” 
they  are  still  authorized  to  grant  a  share  of  the  public  fund  to  “  In¬ 
stitutions  or  Schools,”  and  Catholic  schools  can  certainly,  equally 
Avith  others,  be  embraced  under  one  of  those  terms. 

The  Committee  also  take  up  the  objections  made  by  the  Catholics 
to  the  present  administration  of  the  Common  School  System  and 
attempt  a  reply  to  them. 

“  It  is  urged,”  say  the  Committee,  “  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic  petitioners  that 
they,  as  tax-payers,  contribute  to  the  fund  thus  annually  raised,  and  that  tlvcy  are 
thus  entitled  to  participate  in  its  benefits.  This  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  they  are  taxed  not  as  members  of  tlic  Eoman  Catholic 
Chiu'ch,  but  as  citizens  of  the  State  of  New  York.” 

That  is,  said  the  Bishop,  Ave  are  citizens  Avhen  they  come  to  us  to 
gather  the  taxes,  but  we  are  Roman  Catholics  when  Ave  look  for  a 
share  of  the  fund  thus  contributed.  [Tremendous  applause.]  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  learn  the  grounds  of  this  distinction.  Th  at  Ave  Avere  cit¬ 
izens  so  long  as  we  had  taxes  to  pay  Avas  not  denied  ;  but  when  Ave 
seek  to  participate  in  the  fund,  with  all  their  best  efforts  they  could 
onfjjl'  see  one  thing,  that  Ave  were  Roman  Catholics.  But  we  tell 
them  now  that  we  Avant  this  money  as  citizens.  We  are  Catholics, 
it  is  true,  and  the  Constitution  gives  us  a  right  to  be  Avhat  Ave  are, 
and  as  citizens  Ave  come  and  ask  for  our  rights  in  this  matter.  But 
the  Avhole  proceeding  on  their  part  has  been  designed  to  baffle  and 
put  us  off.  To  use  a  homely  expression,  they  haAm  only  been  throAA"- 
ing  dust  in  the  eyes  of  the  public.  What  is  it  but  throwing  dust, 
teaching  all  who  are  interested,  that  we  are  looking  for  the  public 
money  to  support  religion,  Avhen  we  Avould  be  amongst 'the  very  first 
to  resist  such  an  application  of  those  moneys. 

Thera  is  another  point  in  relation  to  this  Report ;  and  it  is  one  of 


88 


AKCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


humiliation  when  I  consider  that  the  disingenuousness  to  whicli^I 
refer  could  enter  into  the  minds  or  plans  of  the  high-minded  gen¬ 
tlemen  who  framed  the  Report,  It  is  entitled  “  The  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Arts  and  Sciences  and  Schools,  on  the  petition  of  the 
officers  and  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  and  other  churches  in 
the  city  of  I^ew  York,  for  an  apportionment  of  school  moneys  to  the 
schools  attached  to  said  churches.”  Row,  said  the  Bishop,  with  the 
exception  of  the  trustees  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  Church  and  the 
Hebrew  congregations  in  Crosby  and  Elm  streets,  there  was  no 
church  in  the  city  of  Rew  York  that  petitioned  the  Common  Coun¬ 
cil  on  the  subject.  They  sent  in  no  petitions.  They  sent  remon¬ 
strances,  however,  against  the  claim  of  the  Catholics,  saying  in  effect 
to  the  Common  Council :  if  you  grant  to  these  the  Catholic  peti¬ 
tioners  what  they  claim,  you  will  be  run  down  with  applications. 
And  even  the  Hebrews  and  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  Church  who 
profess  to  claim  a  portion  of  the  fund  do  not  directly  petition  for  it. 
The  Committee  should  not  therefore  call  them  petitions,  but  should 
class  them  where  they  properly  belong,  with  the  remonstrances,  for 
as  such  they  were  intended  to  operate.  Do  I  find  these  alleged 
petitioners  complaining  of  the  present  system?  They  say:  “Your 
memorialists  had  not  thought  of  asking  that  any  portion  of  the  Com¬ 
mon  School  Fund  might  be  directed  from  its  present  channels  of 
disbursement.”  What  is  this  but  an  admission,  an  implied  declara¬ 
tion,  that  such  a  diversion  of  the  fund  from  its  present  channel 
would  be  improper,  and  the  whole  is  designed  to  impress  upon  the 
Common  Council  the  recollection  that  if  the  Catholic  demand  was 
granted  other  claimants  would  arise ;  for  this  purpose  these  petitions 
were  sent  in  and  intended  to  be  used,  and  in  that  respect  they  are 
more  effective  than  the  remonstrances  which  they  appear  designed 
to  co-operate  with,  I  do  not  say  that  such  was  the  design,  but  such 
is  the  effect  in  point  of  fact.  “  They  had  not  thought,”  they  say, 
“  of  asking  that  any  portion  of  the  Common  School  Fund  should  be 
directed  from  its  present  channels  of  disbursement.”  Why  then 
petition  unless  to  discredit  the  Catholics  ?  Here  again,  following  iip 
the  same  idea  :  “  But  understanding  that  the  trustees  of  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Schools  of  this  city  have  asked  for  a  part  of  said  fund,  if  your 
honorable  body  shall  determine  to  grant  their  request  and  thus  estab¬ 
lish  the  principle  that  this  fund  though  raised  by  general  tax  may 
be  appropriated  to  church  or  sectarian  schools,  then  your  inemoriiiRsts 
respectfully  but  earnestly  contend  that  they  are  entitled  to  a  ratable 
portion  thereof.” 

We  do  not,  said  the  Bishop,  want  this  money  for  church  or  sec¬ 
tarian  schools.  We  merely  want  to  educate  our  children  without 
instilling  poisonous  matter  into  their  minds. 

(The  Bishop  here  read  the  conclusion  of  the  Petition  of  the  Scotch 
Presbyterian  Church,  praying  that  they  may  be  allowed  to  draw  on 
the  school  fund  for  the  children  taught  at  their  schools ;  and  also 
the  petition  of  the  Hebrew  Congregation  of  a  similar  tenor,  praying 
foi  a  portion  of  the  fund,  ‘‘'“provided  the  Common  Council  should  de- 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


89 


termine  to  appropriate  it  wlih  reference  to  religious  faith.’’’'')  These 
two  petitions,  then,  continued  the  Bishop,  tlie  only  ones  praying  in 
any  manner  for  a  portion  of  the  fund,  are,  in  fact,  prayers  against 
our  rights — remonstrances — and  should  he  classed  with  them.  They 
do  not  allege  that  they  want  the  fund  or  that  they  are  suffering  any 
grievance — h*ut  they  caution  as  it  were  the  Common  Council  against 
grantmg  the  relief  we  ask,  as,  in  that  event,  they  w'ill^also  demand  a 
share.  »  /■ 

All  these  gentlemen  seem  to  think  that  we  are  very  difficult  to 
please;  and  they  particularly  urge  that -if  we  ^Dress  our  claims,  the 
present  system  of  public  education  will  be  broken  up.  But  I  have 
a  simple  answer  to  these  objections.  The  schools  are  not  as  sacred 
as  conscience.  The  Constitution  secures  the  right  of  conscience  to 
jiarent  and  child,  but  is  silent  on  the  rights  of  Common  Schools. 
There  is  then  this  answer  to  the  argument  which  they  draw  from 
the  dangers  to  which  the  prosecution  of  our  claim  exposes  the  Com¬ 
mon  School  System.  But  we  have  another  answer.  Every  other 
denomination  seems  entirely  satisfied  with  the  present  system.  But 
we  are  not  satisfied  with  it.  It  is  not  one  that  we  ever  can  be  satis¬ 
fied  with.  I  shall  show  you  presently  that  all  who  have  sent  in  re¬ 
monstrances  against  our  rights  approve  of  the  present  Public  School 
System. 

The  first  on  the  list  of  remonstrances  against  our  rights  which  we 
have  in  this  document  No.  80,  is  “The  Remonstrance  of  the  Trus¬ 
tees  of  the  Public  School  Society they  of  course  approve  of  their 
own  system,  and  after  stating  their  objections  to  our  claim,  they 
conclude  by  saying,  that  their  Executive  Committee  will  present  a 
remonstrance  more  in  detail.  And  in  this  remonstrance  of  the  Ex¬ 
ecutive  Committee  which  I  have  also  here,  are  some  allegations  that 
require  a  pfcssing  comment.  They  state  there  that  the  objections  of 
the  Catholics  to  the  Public  Schools  are  not  “  on  account  of  any  relig¬ 
ious  doctrines  taught  in  tliem,  but  because  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  are  not  taught  therein ;  and  they  now  ask  (the 
remonstrance  adds)  for  a  portion  of  the  public  money,  in  order  that 
these  doctrines  may  be  taught  in  connection  with  the  kind  of  instruc¬ 
tion  for  which  tliese  moneys  were  raised.”  In  the  preceding  jiara- 
graphs  are  the  following  statements:  “The  managers  of  these 
schools  (the  Catholic  schools),  having  what  they  might  deem  higher 
and  more  important  objects  in  view,  in  the  inculcation  of  religious 
creeds  or  dogmas,  could  scarcely  fail  to  neglect  the  literary  for  the 
religious  culture*  of  the* children’s  minds.  If  it  be  urged  that  the 
Catholic  schools  are  open  to  all,  without  distinction  as  to  religious 
sect,  your  remonstrants  reply  that  this  fact  only  enhances  the  objec¬ 
tion  to  granting  the  prayer  of  their  petition  ;  wdiich  then  virtually  is 
that  they  may  he  enabled  to  gain  proselytes  at  the  public  expense.'''’ 

First  they  object  to  us  that  if  we  should  be  enabled  to  establish 
schools  for  the  education  of  the  Catholic  children,  we  Avould  teach 
our  Catechism  in  them.  And  then  if  we  reply  that  our  schools  are 
open  to  all,  they  charge  us  with  a  scheme  for  making  proselytes  at 


90 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


the  public  expense.  On  what  data  do  these  gentlemen  predicate 
these  calumnious  statements?  We  do  not  want  nor  ask  for  the 
public  money  to  enable  us  to  teach  any  religious  doctrines.  The 
assertion  is  a  calumny  for  which  no  foundation  can  be  discovered. 
[Great  applause.] 

And  now  we  come  to  the  Methodists.  * 

The  membei;^  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  after  stating 
in  their  remonstmnce  their  objections  to  the  grant  of  the  Catholic 
k'ijjplication,  add : 

“  Yonr  memorialists  wish  to  be  understood  distinctly  to  declare  their  increased 
confidence  in,  and  approval  of,  the  policy  of  appropriating  the  Public  School 
money  to  the  Public  Schools  only,  and  therefore  remonstrate  most  decidedly 
against  granting  the  petition  of  tlie  Trustees  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Schools, 
which,  in  their  estimation,  would  be  a  perversion  of  the  Public  School  Fund.” 

Here  we  find  the  Methodists  expressing  their  confidence  in  the 
Public  School  System. 

We  have,  then,  the  remonstrance  of  William  Holmes  and  sixty 
one  other  citizens,  protesting  against  the  diversion  of  the  Public 
School  Fund  from  its  present  channel,  blext  comes  the  remon¬ 
strance  of  the  “  East  Broome  street  Baptist  Church,”  in  which  they 
express  their  belief  “  that  the  present  popular  and  highly  efiicient 
Public  Schools  are  better  calculated  to  promote  the  education  of  the 
rising  generation  than  it  could  be  done  if  entrusted  to  the  great 
diversity  of  religious  sects  into  which  the  people  are  divided.” 

“  Lockwood  Smith,  and  two  hundred  and  nine  other  citizens,” 
also  remonstrate ;  reiterating  the  groundless  assertion  that  the 
Catholics  want  the  public  funds  to  aid  them  in  educating  their 
children  according  to  their  religious  faith. 

N  o,  that  is  not  what-  we  want ;  but  simply  that  our  children  shall 
not  be  taught  that  Catholics  are  “  deceitful.”  % 

There  is,  then,  no  reason  for  the  Public  School  Society  to  appre¬ 
hend  danger  from  the  opposition  of  other  denominations.  The 
Baptists — the  Methodists — Mr.  Lockwood  Smith  and  two  hundred 
and  nine  others — all  approve  of  the  present  distribution  of  the 
public  fund.  They  have  full  confidence  in  the  present  system. 
Let  them.  We  have  none,  and  have  no  reason  to. 

We  have  here,  too,  the  remonstrance  of  the  “  Reformed  Protest¬ 
ant  Dutch  Church,”  which  I  must  not  pass  over ;  for  you  all  know 
that  some  leading  persons  in  that  church  are  the  most  gentlemanly, 
polite,  charitable,  kind  and  conciliatory  characters  imaginable,  when¬ 
ever  they  treat  of  us  or  of  our  religion.  [Laughter.]  Well,  these 
gentlemen,  too,  declare  in  their  remonstrance  their  unqualified 
approval  of  the  present  administration  of  the  Common  School 
Fund.  But  in  referring  to  our  application,  they  make  some  further 
observations. 

“We  believe,”  they  say,  “it  is  the  only  instance  in  which  any 
society  of  professed  Christians  h^s  ventured  to  invite  the  2)ublic  au¬ 
thorities  in  so  open  a  manner  to  forget  or  disregard  that  fundamental 
principle  of  our  civil  compact,  '■free  toleration  of  all  religious  denorn- 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


91 


{nations^  special  and  exclusive  privileges  to  none^  and  has  hoklly  soli¬ 
cited  that  their  private  and  sectarian  interests  may  be  taken  under 
the  fostering  care  of  this  State.” 

According  to  the  princijiles  of  this  remonstrance,  then,  said  the 
Bishop,  it  is  necessary,  for  the  existence  of  free  toleration,  to  tax 
you  for  tlie  support  of  schools  from  which  you  must  either  derive 
no  benefit,  or  allow  your  children’s  religious  feelings  and  principles 
to  be  perverted.  For  this  is  the  alternative  that  the  present  system 
imposes  upon  Catholics,  and  it  is  to  be  relieved  from  this  injustice 
that  they  ask,  and  not,  as  is  untruly  charged,  to  violate  any  princi- 
2)les  of  free  toleration. 

In  the  same  manner  with  those  I  have  read  do  all  the  remon¬ 
strances  proceed,  aiiproving  fully  of  the  jiresent  appropriation  of 
the  public  funds. 

There  are  no  grounds,  then,  for  the  jiretended  alarm  for  the  pros¬ 
perity  of  the  public  schools ;  or  that  the  costly  public  sy-uctures 
w'hich  they  have  raised  Avill  become  worthless.  Every  denomina¬ 
tion  besides  the  Catholics  appears  to  be  satisfied  with  the  present 
system,  and  from  among  those  who  have  this  confidence  enough  will 
be  found  to  fill  their  schools. 

But  those'- gentlemen  go  too  far  in  their  ojiposition  :  they  place  it 
on  grounds  that  cannot  be  sustained  ;  they  go  too  far  for  the  law  ; 
and  even  if  the  law  bears  them  out,  they  go  too  far ;  for  if  any  laiv 
of  the  State  of  iMew  York  operates  either  to  compel  a  violation  of 
our  consciences,  or  to  dejirive  us  of  the  benefit  of  taxation,  it  is  not 
constitutional.  There  is  in  the  Constitution  no  principle  that  can 
justify  coercion  of  conscience  ;  and  against  this  injustice  tve  will 
appeal  to  the  end.  We  cannot  be  wmrse  than  we  are  now.  We 
are  paying  now  for  a  system  from  which  w’e  receive  nothing  in 
return.  When  I  speak  of  jiaying,  I  do  not  speak  of  men  who  live 
in  three-story  houses ;  for  w^e  all  jiay,  the  jioor  as  well  as  the  rich — 
the  poor  man  in  the  labor  which  he  contributes — not  only  he  who 
owns  01  occupies  a  house,  but  every  one  who  boards  in  a  house 
pays  for  the  support  of  this  system.  We  cannot  be  worse  than  we 
are.  We  have  striven  for  years  to  jn-ovide  a  substitute  for  those 
schools  from  w^hich  we  are  excluded,  and  we  cannot  be  reduced  to 
a  worse  extremity.  They  say  to  us,  We  throw  open  our  schools; 
why  do  you  not  enter?  But  if,  instead  of  learning  truth,  our  chil¬ 
dren  are  stultified  by  false  history,  are  ojien  doors  a  compensation 
for  such  a  result?  Yes,  take  their  books,  and  when  your  child  has 
read  them  through  from  first  to  last,  what  does  he  know  of  Catho¬ 
lics  ?  Nothing;  hardly  knows  that  such  a  people  existed,  excejit 
when  killing  Cranmer,  or  when  reading  of  Luther  as  the  greatest 
character  of  the  age  ;  or  about  Huss  being  burned  by  those  “  de¬ 
ceitful  Catholics.” 

But  if  they  choose  to  represent  Cranmer  as  a  saint,  or  a  martyr, 
they  must  not  force  their  opinion  of  his  character  upon  us.  Scholars 
■ — men  who  have  studied  and  know  what  the  truth  of  history  is — 
know  that,  so  far  from  being  a  saint  or  a  worthy  character,  he  was 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


(at  least  in  our  opinion,  and  in  this  country  we  have  a  right  to  onr 
opinion)  one  of  the  greatest  hypocrites.  In  discussing  this  matter, 
gentlemen  will  say  to  me,  “  Bishop,  do  not  press  your  rights  too 
strenuously ;  it  will  only  excite  prejudices  which  you  know  exist  on 
the  subject.”  Yes,  they  will  deplore  those  prejudices,  and  yet  they 
will  put  into  the  hands  of  the  children  of  the  public  the  very  sources 
from  which  these  prejudices  are  derived.  They  will  tell  me,  “  Oh, 
you  know  how  prejudiced  the  public  mind  is  but  if  they  put  into 
the  hands  of  the  youth  of  this  country  the  false  history  of  Cranmer, 
and  others  like  it,  what  can  they  expect  will  be  the  result  but  a 
prejudiced-  public  ?  When  they  bring  forw'ard  passages,  for  the 
instruction  of  children,  from  Beattie,  Robertson,  Hume,  how  will 
children  come  out  from  such  schools  ?  as  if  they  thought  that  Cath¬ 
olics  had  no  existence — did  not  know  their  own  history.  I  speak  of 
historical  learning  parti culaidy.  In  the  schools  they  must  have 
works  to  exercise  and  inform  the  minds  of  children  :  but  why  always 
select  tfiose  which  convey  the  worst  meaning  ?  We  have  some 
recollections.  Catholics  have  had  a  past — a  glorious  past ;  they 
liave  had  a  history — one  from  which  might  be  drawn  ample  lessons 
of  virtue,  and  wisdom,  and  patriotism ;  and  instead  of  selecting 
from  false  and  prejudiced  writers,  they  might  as  well  have  gone 
.  back  and  extracted  some  portions  of  Catholic  history — something  of 
Catholic  achievements — something  of  Catholic  inventions  and  dis¬ 
coveries.  We  should  not  then  witness  the  depressing  effect  which 
the  repetition  of  all  those  slanderous  tales  against  Catholics  pro- 
'duces  on  the  young  Catholic  mind.  Have  you  not  observed  it 
yourselves  ?  Have  you  not  seen  the  young  Catholic,  whose  mind 
has  been  filled  with  these  calumnies,  half  ashamed,  when  he  enters 
the  world,  of  his  Catholic  name  and  his  Catholic  associates,  regard¬ 
ing  them  often  as  an  inferior,  worthless  set  ?  and  how  often  has  he 
selected  a  different  class  of  companions,  merely  from  the  servile 
influence  of  these  prejudices  !  But  if  we  were  allowed  our  rights, 
and  permitted  to  draw  from  the  treasures  of  Catholic  knowledge, 
how  different  would  be  the  result !  Our  children  might  then  have 
their  minds  imbued  with  a  knowledge  of  all  that  their  Catholic 
fathers  had  done  ?  they  would  then  know  that  almost  all  the  inven¬ 
tions  and  discoveries  which  have  ennobled  the  history  of  the  modern 
world  are  the  productions  of  Catholic  genius  or  enterprise ;  the 
invention  of  printing — that  greatest  and  most  powerful  means  in 
the  dissemination  of  knowledge  ;  the  post-office  ;  the  Sabbath-school, 
on  Avhich  they  so  much  pride  themselves,  and  which  is  the  fruit  of 
the  benevolence  and  2^iety  of  a  Catholic  Archbishoji — the  sainted 
Borromeo  ;  the  newspajier  or  gazette  ;  the  telescope  ;  the  mariner’s 
compass  ;  the  discovery  of  this  great  continent ;  all  associated  Avith 
Catholic  names  and  Catholic  genius.  And  to  jiass  from  the  material 
Avorld  to  the  Avorld  of  mind  and  morals,  we  Avill  find  there  the  same 
abundant  store  of  Catholic  associations  Avith  Avhich  to  fill  the  mind 
of  the  Catholic  child,  and  teach  him  to  look  upon  himself  and  those 
fi'om  whom  he  has  derived  his  name,  Avith  respect  and  honest  pride. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


93 


If  you  would  let  them  have  an  idea  of  what  there  is  great  or  excel¬ 
lent  in  the  Constitution  of  England,  only  tell  them  to  take  away  all 
that  is  Catholic,  and  what  will  remain  ?  Take  it  all,  and  what  will 
be  left  but  poor-laws,  and  poor-houses,  and  two  or  tliree  similar 
institutions.  Such  would  be  the  result  of  a  Catholic  education. 
But,  dep^'i^^ed  of  our  rights,  we  can  only  expect  to  see  two  classes 
— one  educated,  deriving  benefits  from  a  fund  to  which  we  have  a 
rightful  claim,  but  from  which  we  are  excluded  ;  one  class  able  to 
devise  the  means  for  their  elevation  ;  the  other  uneducated,  depressed 
and  degraded ;  one  composed  of  mechanics,  men  of  knowledge  and 
enterprise ;  the  other  left  to  carry  the  water  and  hew  the  wood, 
without  any  means  for  improving  their  state  except  Avhat  the  poor 
Catholics  can  themselves  provide.  And  all  this  because  we  will  not 
send  our  children  where  they  will  be  trained  up  without  religion  ; 
lose  respect  for  their  parents  and  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  and  come 
out  little  philosophers,  turning  up  their  noses  at  the  name  of  Cath¬ 
olic,  and  ashamed  of  what  they  are  in  truth  too  ignorant  to  respect 
or  comprehend.  Never  was  there  a  more  cruel  injustice  than 
this  system  entails  upon  us,  but  I  am  willing  to  believe  that  it  is  an 
injustice  of  which  those  who  inflict  it  do  not  know  the  full  extent. 

If  the  Public  School  Society  would  remove  the  objections  of 
which  we  complain ;  if  they  will  not  allow  bad  books  or  anti- 
Catholic  influences  to  operate  in  their  system,  we  should  gladly 
send  oiir  children  to  partake  of  its  benefits  ;  provided  advantage  be 
not  taken  of  the  humility  of  their  state,  and  that  it  will  not  be  as  1 
have  known  it  once,  when  a  child  came  home  from  one  of  these 
schools  abashed,  and  saying  that  he  could  not  again  attend  where  all 
were  dressed  in  their  fine  clothes  and  ridiculed  liis  rags  and  poverty. 
We  have  no  objection  that  these  gentlemen  themselves  should  take 
the  whole  management  of  the  instruction  into  their  hands,  provided 
it  be  done  without  the  accomjianying  violations  of  conscience  of 
which  we  complain.  But  I  shall  press  this  subject  upon  those  who 
have  the  right  and  the  authority  to  relieve  us.  I  will  reduce  them  to 
the  necessity  of  admitting  the  justice  of  our  claims,  whether  the  relief 
is  granted  or  not.  We  shall  take  away  every  pretext  from  them 
which  they  now  use  to  deprive  our  children  of  the  rights  which  a 
benevolent  country  has  provided  for  them.  Our  consciences  may 
appear  to  them  to  be  singularly  sensitive.  But  what  subject  is 
there  of  greater  interest?  At  the  death-bed  of  the  parent  what  is 
there  that  excites  in  his  breast  a  more  keen  and  anxious  solicitude 
than  that  his  child  should  remain  true  and  faithful  to  his  religion ; 
and  if  such  is  the  anxiety  of  the  dying  parent,  what  must  be  the 
feelings  of  the  living  ?  But  these  sacred  feelings  of  the  parent  are 
disregarded  in  this  Public  School  System,  and  they  treat  us  like  tlse 
or])hans  of  Stephen  Girard.  But  with  the  difference  which  I  have 
before  noticed,  that  in  this  case  the  money  which  they  waste  in  the 
experiment  is  ours.  But  so  long  as  the  system  remains  unreformed, 
they  shall  not,  they  may  rely  on  it,  have  Catholic  children  to  prac¬ 
tice  upon. 


ARCHBISHOP  HliaaES. 


i.4 


In  the  Report  of  the  School  Commissioners  for  the  past  year  there 
is  one  thing  I  am  sorry  to  see — the  small  number  educated  by  the 
Public  School  Society  with  the  large  means  at  their  disposal  during 
that  period.  It  is  stated  there  that  they  educated  13,189  children, 
■while  we  educated  at  our  own  expense  one-third  of  that  number ; 
and  while  we  were  also  obliged  to  swell  their  fund.  They  received 
from  the  public  fund  $115,'7'&9  42,  during  the  2')ast  year,  and  yet, 
while  Ave  at  our  own  cost  educated  one-third  as  many  children  as 
they  have  done,  they  come  in  and  remonstrate  against  onr  receiving 
any  portion  of  the  ijublic  money  to  Avhich  we  had  contributed. 
They  may  tell  me  it  is  zeal  for  the  cause  of  general  education  that 
actuates  them ;  but  I  assert  that,  Avith  zeal  and  good  management, 
a  much  larger  number  of  children  might  haA’e  been  educated  Avith 
the  same  means  than  this  Report  shoAvs.  They  say  they  have  but 
.  one  end  in  view— the  public  good;  but  being  as  they  are  such  large 
recipients  of  the  public  bounty,  they  should  not  be  the  first  to  step 
betAveen  us  and  the  public  councils.  They  do  not  comjirehend  their 
OAvn  ])osition.  They  do  not  believe  that  they  are  all  this  time 
SAvelling  the  tide  of  irreligion.  They  allege  this,  and  therefore  I 
do  not  discredit  their  motives  ;  still,  they  are  not  infallible  nor  im¬ 
peccable.  And  I  do  not  see  but  that,  Avith  all  their  love  for  poAver, 
grasping  for  the  public  money,  and  stepping  in  to  defeat  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  rightful  claimants,  there  may  be  more  that  is  earthy  and 
fallible  in  their  motives  than  they  admit  even  perhaps  to  themselves. 
But  hoAvever  this  may  be,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  v^hile  the  system 
remains  unchanged  there  can  be  no  more  connection  on  the  part  of 
Catholics  Avith  thie  Public  Schools. 

They  pretend  that  the'laAV  cut  off  all  religious  societies.  But  the 
laAA^  did  not  cut  them  off.  It  only  moderated  the  right  to  demand 
a  portion  of  the  fund.  It  left  it  discretionary  Avith  the  Common 
•♦Council  to  grant  or  to  refuse  the  money.  It  did  not  disqualify  reli¬ 
gious  societies  from  becoming  recipients  of  the  public  fund.  I  have 
examined  this  question  carefully  and  as  well  as  my  numerous  other 
engagements  would  permit,  and  I  am  entirely  satisfied  that  no  Cath¬ 
olic  can  conscientiously  alloAV  his  child  to  attend  those  schools  as  at 
present  constitiited. 

While  in  the  popular  efforts  at  reform  a  hue  and  cry  has  been 
raised  against  monopolies,  there  has  been  gradually  a  monopoly  of 
mind  established  ;  taking  it,  too,  in  its  most  tender  and  susceptible 
period ;  and  this  monopoly  is  one  which  should  be  guarded  against 
AA’ith  the  utmost  jealousy.  The  duty  Avhich  it  assumes  belongs  of 
right  to  the  parent  and  the  citizen,  and  it  is  the  last  Avhich  should 
be  given  up.  If  parents  had  delegated  the  right,  it  could  not  be 
more  authoritatively  used  than  it  is  noAV  by  this  monopoly.  But 
the  i-ight  has  not  been  delegated.  It  is  a  self-elected  public  in¬ 
structor  Avhose  members  are  chosen  Avithin  themselves  on  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  close  borough  system.  And  against  this  monopoly 
and  its  spirit  of  encroachment  Ave  must  never  cease  to  direct  our 
most  anxious  attCTition. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOJr. 


95 


The  adversaries  of  our  claims  will  seldom  now  dispute  the  fact 
of  the  existence  of  our  griev:ances.  But  they  will  hid  us  look  to 
.  public  feeling ;  they  will,  appeal  to  prejudices  which  they  say  are 
arrayed  against  us.  But  I  have  no  alarm.  All  denominations  they 
say  will  be  leagued  against  us.  If  we  ask  for  anything  itnjust,  we 
might  feel  apprehensive.  But  if  we  make  the  justice  of  our  case 
clear,  if  we  clear  away  the  mist  which  these  documents  and  other 
similar  misstatements  have  created,  my  confidence  is  unshaken  that 
their  sense  of  public  justice  will  make  even  our  opponents  them¬ 
selves  accede  to  our  just  and,  temperate  demands. 

The  Right  Rev.  JAelate  here  closed  his  address,  throughout  the 
delivery  of  Avhich  he  Avas  repeatedly  applauded  in  the  most  enthu¬ 
siastic  manner,  and  he  sat  down  amid  loud  and  long-continued 
cheering. 

When  several  other  speakers  had  addressed  the  meeting,  the 
Bishop  rose  and  said,  that  in  their  present  position  in  relation  to 
this  question  additional  measures  should  be  taken  to  insure  the  suc¬ 
cess  of  their  cause.  They  must  pi'omote  it  now  not  by  speaking 
alone,  and  he  Avould  propose  that  some  means  of  approaching  the 
Common  Council  should  be  devised  ;  that  a  committee  be  apjminted 
for  devising  some  mode  of  ascertaining  whether  the  Common  Council 
are  still  disposed  to  perseA’ere  in  denying  to  the  Catholics  tlieir 
rights ;  that  mode  might  be  either  by  petition  or  in  some  other 
form.  The  Legislature  had  not  denied  to  religious  societies  the 
right  to  receive  a  portion  of  the  Common  School  Fund.  By  the 
alteration  which  had  been  made  in  the  old  laAV  the  ohUgaiion  to  dis- 
tribxite  a  portion  of  the  fund  among  the  religious  incorporated  soci¬ 
eties  had  ceased,#but  the  discretion  to  make  such  a  distribution 
Avhere  it  Avould  be  reasonable  to  do  so  was  still  left.  The  law  does 
not  state  that  a  school  connected  AA’ith  a  church  should  not  receh'e 
a  share  of  the  fund.  There  is  no  such  disqualification  imposed, 
and  consequently  a  discretion  is  still  left  to  the  Common  Council  to 
make  such -a  school  one  of  the  recipients,  when  a  proper  case  should 
arise.  It  is  objected  that  the  Catholics  cannot  bring  themselves 
within  the  meaning  of  any  of  the  terms  used  in  the  recent  laws. 
But  let  this  verbiage  be  put  aAvay ;  let  them  call  it  schools  or  soci¬ 
eties,  they  are  certainly  one  or  the  other.  The  laAV  never  designed 
that  the  Common  Council  should  indulge  caprice  or  Avhim;  but, 
Avhen  they  found  a  just  or  reasonable  ground  for  the  application, 
they  should  grant  it. 

This  committee  might  arrange  the  Executive  part  of  the  business, 
said  the  Bishop,  so  that  while  Ave  talk  and  Avhile  Ave  write  {for  it 
may  yet  be  necessary  to  Avrite  much  on  this  subject)  Ave  shall  also 
take  some  more  definite  action  in  the  matter.  I  will  therefore  move 
that  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  for  the  purpose  I  have  indi¬ 
cated.  I  will  suggest  that,  in  order  to  guard  against  any  imjiuta- 
tion  of  political  partiality,  tAvo  gentlemen  of  the  committee  be 
selected  from  each  of  the  leading  political  parties.  [Great  ap¬ 
plause,] 


96 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Tlie  Bishop’s  motion  being  seconded,  was  then  pnt  to  the  meet- 
ing  by  the  chairman  and  carried  unanimously,  and  the  following 
gentlemen  were  appointed  members  of  the  pommittee  :  Rt,  Rev.  Dr. 
Hughes,  Thomas  O’Connor,  Dr.  Sweeney,  James  W.  McKeon,  and 
James  Kelley. 


Meeting  in  the  Basement  of  St.  James’s  Church,  Septem¬ 
ber  21,  1840.  * 

On  Monday  evening,  .September  21,  the  Catholics  again  met  in 
great  numbers  in  the  basement  of  St.  James’s  Church,  to  receive  the 
report  of  the  committee  appointed  at  the  previous  meeting  to  pre* 
pare  a  memorial  to  the  Common  Council  on  the  subject  of  their 
claim  to  a  portion  of  the  Common  School  Fund  for  the  education 
of  Catholic  children.  The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  was  present 
and  was  received  with  a  warm  and  affectionate  gi-eeting  on  his 
entrance.  The  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Power  was  also  cordially  welcomed 
as  he  entered  the  place  of  meeting,  accompanied  by  a  large  body 
of  clerical  and  lay  gentlemen,  after  an  absence  of  some  months  from 
the  city  for  the  restoration  of  his  health.  At  the  time  appointed 
for  the  commencement  of  proceedings  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  was 
again  'called  to  the  chair,  Gregory  Dillon,  Esq.,  was  chosen  Vice- 
President,  and  the  secretaries  of  former  meetings  were  re-appointed 
Mr.  B.  O’Conner,  one  of  the  secretaries,  read  the  minutes  of  the 
last  meeting,  and  they  were  approved  and  adopted.  Mr.  James  W. 
McKeon  then  rose  and  said  that  the  committee  appointed  at  the 
last  meeting  to  prepare  a  memorial  to  the  city  authorities  had  dis 
charged  the  duty  assigned  to  them,  and  were  ready  to  make  theii 
report.  He  therefore  moved  that  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop.  Hughes, 
tiie  chairman  of  the  committee,  be  respectfully  requested  to  read  the 
memorial  which  the  committee  had  prepared.  The  motion  having 
been  carried  liy  acclamation,  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  came 
forward  and  read  the  memorial,  which  was  a  most  able  and  interest¬ 
ing  document. 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  Gallagher,  the  report  of  the  committee 
was  unanimously  adopted,  and  another  committee,  consisting  of 
Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  Dr.  Hugh  Sweeney,  James  W.  McKeon, 
Esq.,  and  J.  Kelley,  Esq.,  were  appointed  to  proceed  at  once  to 
present  the  memorial  to  the  Board  of  Aldermen  which  was  then  in 
council.  In  the  absence  of  the  chairman  on  this  mission  as  one 
of  the  committee  appointed  for  that  purpose,  the  vice-president 
became  the  chairman  of  the  meeting,  but  he  requested  the  aid  of 
the  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Power,  who  took  the  chair  amidst  loud  acclama¬ 
tion.  A  motion  was  then  made  that  the  Petition  just  read,  be 
printed  and  published  ^as  containing  an  able,  lucid,  and  clear  exposi¬ 
tion  of  the  whole  question,  and  the  grounds  on  which  the  claims  of 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


97 


the  Catholics  rested,  and  that  by  so  doing  it  would  prevent  a  gar¬ 
bled  statement  of  its  contents  going  before  the  public.  But  on  the 
suggestion  of  Bishop  Hughes  that  it  might  be  showing  a  want  of 
proper  courtesy  on  their  part,  to  do  so  before  publication  by  order 
of  the  Common  Council,  the  motion  was  withdrawn.* 

After  Dr.  Power  had  addressed  the  meeting,  the  Right  Rev. 
Bishop  Hughes  presented  himself,  and  was  received  with  great 
applause.  He  said  he  had  mentioned,  some  time  ago,  that  he  had 
understood  that  a  reply,  which  usually  meant  an  attempt  at  refuta¬ 
tion,  was  being  jirepared  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Public  Schools. 
Happening  to  allude  to  it  one  evening,  he  had  ventured  to  turn 
projihet  and  say  that  it  would  be  no  reply  in  the  sense  of  a  refuta¬ 
tion,  and  that  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the  document  in  his  hand. 
He  said  then  there  would  be  no  meeting  and  grapjilmg  with  the 
facts  and  arguments  of  the  Address,  and  he  now  found  that  instead 
there  was  an  appeal  to  public  opinion  !  They  had^  the  idea  that  the 
2)repulices  of  the  community  were  with  them,  and  that  consequently 
they  could  dispense  with  the  trouble  of  contending  with  facts  and 
arguments  at  all ;  and  to  get  the  “  weather  guage,”  as  the  sailor 
would  say,  they  introduce  in  the  first  paragraph  the  old  phrase 
about  “  Church  and  State,”  and  they  represent  the  Catholic  Address 
as  a  new  appeal  for  a  portion  of  the  School  Fund  for  the  support 
of  their  church-schools,  as  schools  m  which  nothing  but  the  cate¬ 
chism  was  taught  from  morning  to  night.  He  trusted  now,  that 
the  language  of  their  Petition  would  make  it  clear,  for  they  had  been 
reduced  to  the  necessity  of  telling  them  what  they  did  not  petition 
for.  [Applause.] 

Well,  after  the  introduction,  which  was  the  making  their  bow  to 
the  prejudices  of  the  community,  they  come  to  a  proposition  at  which 
he  was  startled ;  the  proposition  was  in  these  words :  “  It  is  proper, 
therefore,  that  the  allegations  contained  in  the  Address  of  the  Roman 
Catholics,  be  either  admitted  or  refuted.”  Bravo,  said  he  [laughtei'J, 
now  you  talk  like  men.  In  the  next  sentence  they  said,  “  They  are 
of  a  grave  and  serious  character” — that  they  were  [applause] — 
“  and  such  as  should,  if  true,  justly  deprive  the  Trustees  of  the  con¬ 
fidence  which  has  been  so  long  reposed  in  them.  But  they  are  not 
trueB  And  that — “  But  they  are  not  true  ” — was  all  the  refutation 
they  gave.  After  that  they  might  look  in  vain  and  they  would  not 
find  a  single  fact  in  their  Address  disproved ;  but  they  proceed  to  ad¬ 
minister  to  that  disrejuitable  prejudice  on  which  they  calculated  with 
so  much  certainty.  And  as  they  had  furnished  no  ground  of  review, 
as  they  had  taken  up  no  point  of  the  Address,  as  they  had  not  re¬ 
futed  any  of  its  facts  or  reasonings,  of  course  he  was  dispensed  from 
the  necessity  of  going  over  all  they  had  said,  and  he  should  there¬ 
fore  merely  go  over  some  portions  of  it,  more  for  the  purpose  of  pass¬ 
ing  the  evening  than  for  any  other  purpose.  Well,  they  take  advant¬ 
age  of  this  public  prejudice ;  then  they  state  what  they  are  charged 


7 


*  This  Petition  is  given  on  page  102. 


98 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES, 


with,  and  they  add  the  significant  words  “But  we  forbear.”  [Laugh¬ 
ter.]  They  say  of  the  books,  though,  afterwards — they  are  brought 
a  little  to  their  senses  and  cry  peccavi — they  do  say  they  have  had 
wrong  books  in  the  schools.  This  they  acknowledge.'  But  they  say 
“The  reading-books  used  in  the  Public  Schools  are  the  same  as  those 
used  in  private  schools  of  a  similar  grade,  in  which  children  of  vari¬ 
ous  religious  persuasions,  including  those  of  our  more  wealthy  fel¬ 
low  citizens  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  are  educated.”  And 
pray  was  it  an  approval  of  those  books  because  some  of  their  “more 
w'ealthy  fellow  citizens  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church”  allowed 
their  children  to  be  educated  where  they  were  used.  No  ;  but  they 
submitted  to  it.  But  it  would  seem  that  the  spirit  of  Proselytism, 
and  the  device  of  meeting  the  children  at  the  threshold,  had  be¬ 
come  general.  They  attacked  the  young  mind,  knowing  that  they 
could  not  convert  the  grown-up  Catholic  in  whose  mind  their  holy 
and  divine  faith  was  well  established.  [Applause.]  But  if  Catholics 
had  allowed  their  children  to  attend  schools  where  these  books  were 
used  it  did  not  follow  that  they  approved  of  them.  Again  they  say 
“  many  of  them  contain  the  best,  most  sublime  and  impressive  essays 
on  morals  and  religion  that  can  be  found  in  the  English  language,” 
■ — that  is,  they  being  the  judges, — “  and  are  calculated  to  impress 
on  the  young  mind  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  God  ” — what  a  long 
creed  that  is ! — [laughter] — “the  immortality  of  the  soul” — why,  Plato 
believed  that ! — and  a  futiire  state  of  rewards  and  punishments.  “  They 
pictiire  vice  in  its  naked  deformity,-  and  pre.sent  virtue  in  her  most 
pleasing  and  attractive  colors.”  And  this  is  the  answer  they  give  to 
the  Address  of  the  Catholics;  and  then,  by  way  of  showing  what  ex¬ 
cellent  institutions  these  Public  Schools  are — for  they  have  not  a  high 
test  of  their  moral  influence — they  say,  “  Let  the  records  of  our  crim¬ 
inal  courts,  our  prisons,  and  the  receptacles  of  those  who  by  reason 
of  ‘  rioting  in  the  fierceness  of  unrestrained  hists,’  have  become  a 
public  charge,  be  examined  with  reference  to  the  efiect  of  our  system 
of  education  on  the  mind  and  morals,  as  compared  with  any  other 
system,  and  the  result  will  be  found  highly  favorable  to  the  Public 
Schools.”  That  is  to  say,  if  the  scholars  do  not  find  themselves 
forthwith  in  the  Penitentiary,  the  system  is  not  so  bad !  But  we 
should  expect  something  better.  He  had  said  so  to  the  Trustees, 
and  he  violated  no  confidence  by  the  disclosure — [laughter] — he  had 
told  them  that  though  the  scholars  educated  in  those  schools  were  not 
the  persons  most  frequently  found  in  the  criminal  jails,  he  was  able 
to  prove,  so  far  as  such  a  matter  was  susceptible  of  proof,  that  the 
exclusiveness  and  the  sj)irit  of  monopoly  in  that  body  of  men,  and  the 
consequent  exclusion  of  so  many  from  means  of  education,  was  the 
cause  why  others  do  go  to  the  Penitentiary.  The  children  of  the 
poor  who  did  not  go  to  those  schools  were  not  allowed  by  the  pre¬ 
vailing  exclusiveness  in  the  Trustees  to  be  educated  out  of  their 
“  shop;”  they  were  consequently  left  uneducated  and  unrestrained; 
they  were  left  to  form  bad  acquaintances  by  whom  they  became  cor- 
ruj^ted,  and  they  corrupters  in  their  turn.  The  cause  was  in  the  ex- 


THE  SCHOOL  siTJESTION. 


99 


chisiveness  of  those  men  who  would  not  allow  them  to  have  teachers 
in  whom  they  had  confidence.  [Applause.] 

Here  they  refer  to  a  chapter  entitled  “  Sunday  Morning,”  which  ho 
read  at  a  previous  meeting  from  one  of  those  school  books ;  and  of 
all  chapters  they  thought  this  was  selected  with  the  least  judgment. 
They  would  recollect  it  was  a  story  of  a  father  and  his  son  passing 
on  the  Sunday  morning  through  the  churches  of  the  different  deno¬ 
minations,  and  after  entering  a  Catholic  place  of  worship  and  re¬ 
marking  on  every  one  of  the  Catholic  congregation  dipping  his  finger 
in  holy  Avater  and  crossing  himself  as  he  went  in,  they  Avound  up 
that  sincerity  was  the  true  spirit ;  or  in  other  words  that  it  made  no 
difference  what  they  believed — whether  Quaker,  Baptist,  Epi-scopa- 
lian,  Unitarian,  Methodist,  or  Roman  Catholic — provided  they  raised 
the  man  who  fell  in  the  street ;  or  provided  one  raised  him,  and 
another  applied  a  smelling-bottle  to  his  nose,  and  another  ran  for  a 
surgeon,  and  another  attended  to  his  Avife  and  children,  it  was  no 
matter  Avdiat  their  rehgious  creed  was.  [Laughter.]  Roav  this  had 
been  before  commented  on  in  a  neAVspaper  paragraph,  and  in  a  leisure 
half  hour  he  Avrote  an  answer,  and  to  put  it  to  the  test  he  asked  in 
that  letter  that  some  Christian  minister  in  UeAV  York  should  be  got 
to  endorse  that  chapter  from  the  pulpit,  and  no  one  could  be  found  to 
do  it.  Noav  there  Avas  a  very  poAverful  .ansAver  or  refutation — for  it 
was  to  be  obsei’A'ed  that  they  lay  down  the  rule  that  what  they  don’t 
refute  Avas  to  be  admitted — they  meet  one  of  the  charges  of  objections 
of  Catholics  in  the  folloAving  manner :  “  They  say  that  they  could 
not  discharge  their  conscientious  duty  to  their  offspring  if  they  al¬ 
lowed  them  to  be  brought  up  under  the  irreligious  principles  on 
Avhich  the  Public  Schools  are  conducted” — and  observe  they  profess 
to  exclude  all  sectarianism,  and  if  they  do  they  exclude  all  Christian¬ 
ity,  and  the  system  must  be  irreligious.  Having  quoted  those  Avords, 
they  gwe  this  answer :  “  And  while  they  ask  of  the  State  the  means 
of  supporting  their  schools,  that  they  may  train  up  their  children  ‘in 
principles  of  virtue  and  religion,’  they  assure  the  public  that  they 
Avould  scorn  to  support  or  adAnoce  their  religion  at  any  other  than 
their  own  expense.”  Certainly,  Catholics  assure  the  public  of  that, 
and  he  repeated  the  assurance.  But  they  proceed:  “A  solution  of 
some  of  these  incongruities  may,  perhaps,  be  found  in  the  fact,  tliat 
they  do  not  class  themselves  among  sectarians,  or  denominations  of 
Christians,  but  claim  to  be  emphatically  ‘  The  Church.’  ”  ISToav  they 
never  foAind  any  such  expression  in  any  thing  they  had  said.  They 
(the  Catholics)  spoke  of  their  position  as  they  stand  before  the  coun¬ 
try.  The  laAV  called  them  a  sect,  and  they  spoke  of  themselves  as 
the  laAV  spoke  of  them,  and  those  men  thus  readily  resorted  to  this 
perversion  of  their  ideas  Avithout  one  iota  of  proof.  They  (the  Ca¬ 
tholics)  defied  them  to  show  that  they  had  spoken  as  was  asserted. 
[Applause.]  The  reverend  gentleman  who  referred  a  few  minutes  ago 
to  his  2:)art  of  the  subject  might  have  extended  his  remarks  a  little 
further  in  the  same  chapter.  They  speak  of  the  question  of  education 
in  Ireland,  and  to  justify  themselves  they  introduce  Avhat  they  had 


100 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


said  at  a  recent  conference  and  the  reply  that  was  made  to  them. 
They  say:  “It  is  known  that  a  large  portion  of  the  bishops  and  cler¬ 
gy  of  the  established  and  other  Protestant  churches,  and  a  majority 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  bishops  of  Ireland,  have  agreed  upon  a  gen¬ 
eral  system  of  education,  and  a  collection  of  extracts  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures  for  the  National  Schools  of  that  country.  At  the  confer¬ 
ence  just  referred  to,  the  question  was  distinctly  put,  whether  the 
objection  of  the  Catholic  clergy  to  the  Public  Schools,  so  far  as  re¬ 
gards  reading  the  Scriptures  without  note  or  comment,  would  be  re¬ 
moved  by  the  use  of  these  extracts  in  them.  The  answer  was,  that 
the  dissenting  bishops  had  appealed  to  the  Pope  against  the  majority 
of  their  body,  and  as  his  Holiness  had  not  yet  settled  the  question, 
he  was  not  prepared  to  give  his  answer.  The  Trustees  very  much 
regret  that  circumstances  have  placed  them  in  a  situation  which  ren¬ 
ders  this  exposition  necessary.  But  they  could  not  do  less  and  dis¬ 
charge  their  duty  to  themselves  and  the  public.”  Why,  the  Trustees 
must  have  strange  notions  of  the  subject  to  suppose  they  need  express 
regret  for  making  disclosures  which  are  published  in  every  paper  in 
the  Britsh  Empire ;  but  the  meeting  would  perceive  they  were  still 
feeding  that  abominable  prejudice  of  the  public  mind ;  saying  in 
effect:  “Though  the  Protestants  quarrel  among  themselves,  they  are 
agreed  against  you”  (Catholics).  Oh!  but  Catholics  have  appealed 
to  the  Pope,  and  they  wanted  to  create  prejudice  by  that,  while  they 
claim  credit  for  the  moderation  with  which  they  had  made  it  known. 
Yes,  the  Catholics  do  consxilt  the  Pope,  and  they  glory  in  consulting 
the  Holy  Father,  the  Catholic  Chief  Pastor.  [Great  applause.]  Now 
it  was  not  to  be  i^assed  over  that  these  gentlemen  are  over  royal  in 
their  ambition  when  they  would  place  themselves  in  juxtaposition 
with  the  British  Crown — would  consider  themselves  as  bolding  the 
same  relation  to  us  that  the  British  Government  held  with  the  Irish 
clergy  in  the  qxiestion  in  dispute  between  them.  But  here  the  ques¬ 
tion  was  not  the  same ;  for  the  Trustees  of  the  Public  Schools  in 
New  York  were  a  private  corporation,  while  the  Catholics  in  Ireland 
had  to  do  with  the  British  Government ;  and  concession  yielding  to 
that  government  should  form  no  precedent  here.  The  contracting 
parties  on  the  other  side  were  exceedingly  different.  Bxit  they  come 
to  another  point  to  show  their  liberality — they  “yield  to  the  conscien¬ 
tious  scruples  of  the  Roman  Catholics!”  They  yield!  What  have 
they  to  yield  ?  But  they  “  are  bound  to  protect  the  feelings  and  in¬ 
terests  of  the  Protestant  churches !” 

In  England  there  is  an  officer  who  is  designated  the  “  Keeper 
of  the  King’s  Conscience,”  and  the  Trustees  of  the  Public  School 
Society  are  become  the  guardians  of  the  consciences  of  both  the 
Catholics  and  Protestants — emphatically  the  protectors  of  “the  feel¬ 
ings  and  interests  of  the  Protestant  churclies!”  [Laughter.]  They 
stand  as  umpires  between  the  chui'ches,  and  they  profess  to  regret 
that  the  Catholic  clergy  have  not  met  them  to  obtain  their  confidence, 
and  to  have  a  joint  examination  and  expurgation  of  the  Public  School 
books.  Why,  if  they  had,  in  what  a  situation  would  they  have  been  ? 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


101 


Suppose  he  should  go  to  the  study  of  those  hooks  day  after  day,  and 
week  after  week,  to  point  out  the  necessary  corrections,  and  after  he 
had  taken  that  trouble  by  courtesy  to  supply  their  want  of  ability  to 
understand  them  themselves,  should  be  told  that  they  must  first 
“protect  the  feelings  and  interests  of  the  Protestant  churches?”  Did 
they  think  Catholics  had  no  “feelings”  at  all  to  be  “protected?”  Did 
they  think  Catholics  would  make  those  corrections  and  submit  them 
to  a  board  where  there  were  but  one  or  two  voices  that  would  be 
raised  to  “  protect  ”  their  religion,  and  enforce  their  constitutional 
.  right  to  their  doctrines?  A  question  was  asked  of  him  whether 
Catholics  would  be  content  if  they  excluded  all  Scripture  “  without 
note  or  comment.”  But  he  told  them  that  Catholics  were  too  hum¬ 
ble  to  expect  such  a  sacrifice.  He  was  not  willing  to  put  it  in  their 
power  to  place  Catholics  before  Protestants  as  having  such  enmity 
to  the  word  of  God.  He  did  not  say  they  would  do  so,  but  it  would 
have  been  in  their  power  to  make  that  use  of  that  concession,  and  he 
Avas  resolved  not  to  make  or  give  them  the  opportunity.  And  here, 
again,  after  referring  to  the  Pope,  and  the  question  of  education  in 
Ireland,  they  tell  us  they  “remain  ready  and  anxious  to  join  Avith 
the  Roman  Catholics  in  efforts  so  to  model  the  books  and  studies  in 
the  Public  Schools,  as  to  obviate  existing  difficulties.  They  think 

that  it  may  be  done.  But  ” - and  Avhenever  they  heard  hxit  in 

language  of  this  kind,  they  might  expect  something  insurmountable 
— [laughter] — “if,  as  Avas  the  case  in  the  Irish  National  Schools,  an 
appeal  to  the  Pope  should  be  necessary,  they  are  free  to  confess,  in 
the  language  of  the  Address,  that  ‘a  perfect  neutrality  of  influence,  on 
the  subject  of  religion,’  is  indeed  impossible.”  Why,  the  fact  is  if 
they  had  not  truth  whereAvithal  to  meet  the  Catholic’s  facts  and  argu¬ 
ments,  as  this  shoAved  they  had  not,  it  was  not  worth  their  Avhile  to 
sneer  at  them,  or  to  introduce  this  sly  observation  as  though  it  Avas 
matter  of  their  concern  Avhether  Catholics  consult  the  Pope  or  not. 
But  Catholics  did  not  require  the  aid  of  intrinsic  light,  Avhile  they 
saAv  the  Public  Schools  teaching  their  children  that  Catholics  Avere 
“deceitful,”  Avithout  distinction  of  age,  clime  or  country.  Catholics., 
Avho  were  more  than  triple  in  numbers  all  the  other  bodies  togethei’, 
when  they  saw  books  put  into  the  hands  of  their  children  which 
stigmatized  them  as  deceitful,  they  had  no  great  necessity  to  consult 
the  Pope  about  the  business.  But  it  Avas  not  worth  while  to  pursue 
the  subject  further.  [Great  applause.] 


102 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


PETITION  OF  THE  CATHOLICS  OF  NEW  YORK 
FOR  A  PORTION  OF  THE  COMMON 
SCHOOL  FUND. 


TO  THE  HONORABLE  THE  BOARD  OF  ALDERMEN  OF  THE  CITY  OP 

NEW  YORK. 

The  Petition  of  the  Catholics  of  New  TorTc^ 

Pcspectfully  represents : 

That  your  Petitioners  yield  to  no  class  in  their  performance  of,  and  dispo¬ 
sition  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  citizens. — They  bear,  and  are  willing  to 
bear,  their  portion  of  every  common  burden ;  and  feel  themselves  entitled  to 
a  participation  in  every  common  benefit. 

This  participation,  they  regret  to  say,  has  been  denied  them  for  years  back, 
in  reference  to  Common  School  Education  in  the  city  of  New  York,  except 
on  conditions  with  which  their  conscience,  and,  as  they  believe  their  duty 
to  God,  did  not,  and  do  not  leave  them  at  liberty  to  comply. 

The  rights  of  conscience,  in  this  country,  are  held  by  the  constitution  and 
universal  consent  to  he  sacred  and  inviolate.  No  stronger  evidence  of  this 
need  be  adduced  than  the  fact,  that  one  class  of  citizens  are  exempted  from 
the  duty  or  obligation  of  defending  their  country  against  an  invading  foe, 
out  of  delicacy  and  deference  to  the  rights  of  conscience  which  forbids 
them  to  take  up  arms  for  any  purpose. 

Your  Petitioners  only  claim  the  benefit  of  this  principle  in  regard  to  the 
public  education  of  their  children.  They  regard  the  public  education  which 
the  State  has  provided  as  a  common  benefit,  in  which  they  are  most  desirous 
and  feel  that  they  are  entitled  to  participate;  and  therefore  they  pray  your 
Honorable  Body  that  they  may  be  permitted  to  do  so,  without  violating 
their  conscience. 

But  your  Petitioners  do  not  ask  that  this  prayer  be  granted  without  assign¬ 
ing  their  reasons  for  preferring  it. 

In  ordinary  cases  men  are  not  required  to  assign  the  motives  of  conscien¬ 
tious  scruples  in  matters  of  this  kind.  But  your  petitioners  are  aware  that  a 
large,  wealthy  and  concentrated  influence  is  directed  against  their  claim  by 
the  Corporation  called  the  Public  School  Society.  And  that  this  influence, 
acting  on  apuhlic  opinion  already  but  too  much  predisposed  to  judge  unfixvor- 
ably  of  the  claims  of  your  petitioners,  requires  to  be  met  by  facts  which 
Justify  them  in  thus  appealing  to  your  Honorable  Body,  and  which  may,  at 
the  same  time,  convey  a  more  correct  impression  to  the  public  mind.  Your 
petitioners  adopt  this  course  the  more  willingly,  because  the  justice  and  im¬ 
partiality  which  distinguish  the  decisions  of  public  men,  in  this  counti-y, 
inspire  them  with  the  confidence  that  your  Honorable  Body  will  maintain, 
in  their  regard,  the  principle  of  the  rights  of  conscience,  if  it  can  be  done 
without  violating  the  rights  of  others,  and  on  no  other  condition  is  the  claim 
solicited. 


PETITION  OF  THE  CATHOLICS. 


103 


It  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  trouble  your  Honorable  Body  with  a  detail 
of  tbe  circumstances  by  which  the  monopoly  of  the  public  education  of  cliil- 
dreu  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  of  the  funds  provided  for  that  purpose  at 
tlie  expense  of  the  State,  have  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  private  corporation, 
styled  in  its  Act  of  Cliarter,  “The  Public  Scliool  Society  of  the  City  of  New 
York.”  It  is  composed  of  men  of  different  sects  or  denominations.  But 
that  denomination,  Friends,  which  is  believed  to  have  the  controlling  influ¬ 
ence,  both  by  its  numbers  and  otherwise,  holds  as  a  peculiar  sectarian  prin¬ 
ciple  that  any  formal  or  official  teaching  of  religion  is,  at  best,  unprofitable. 
And  your  petitioners  have  discovered  that  such  of  their  children  as  have 
attended  the  public  schools,  are  generally,  and  at  an  early  age,  imbued  with 
tbe  same  principle — that  they  become  untractable,  disobedient,  and  even 
contemptuous  towards  their  parents — unwilling  to  learn  any  thing  of  religion 
— as  if  they  had  become  illuminated,  and  could  receive  all  the  knowledge  of 
religion  necessary  for  them  by  instinct  or  inspiration.  Your  petitioners  do 
not  pretend  to  assign  the  cause  of  this  change  in  their  children,  they  only 
attest  the  fact,  as  resulting  from  their  attendance  at  the  public  schools  of  the 
Public  School  Society. 

This  Society,  however,  is  composed  of  gentlemen  of  various  sects,  includ¬ 
ing  even  one  or  two  Catholics.  But  they  profess  to  exclude  all  sectarianism 
from  their  schools.  If  they  do  not  exclude  sectarianism,  they  are  avowedly 
no  more  entitled  to  the  school  funds  than  your  petitioners,  or  any  other  de¬ 
nomination  of  professing  Christians.  If  they  do,  as  they  profess,  exclude 
sectarianism,  then  your  petitioners  contend  that  they  exclude  Christianity — 
and  leave  to  the  advantage  of  infidelity  the  tendencies  which  are  given  to 
the  minds  of  youth  by  the  influence  of  this  feature  and  pretension  of  their 
system. 

If  they  could  accomplish  what  they  profess,  other  denominations  would 
join  your  pefttioners  in  remonstrating  against  their  schools.  But  they  do 
not  accomplish  it.  Your  petitioners  will  show  your  Honorable  Body  that 
they  do  admit  -what  Catholics  call  sectarianism,  (although  others  may  call  it 
only  religion,)  in  a  great  variety  of  ways. 

In  their  22d  report,  as  far  back  as  the  year  1827,  they  tell  us,  page  14,  that 
they  “are  aware  of  the  importance  of  early  religious  instruction,”  and 
that  none  but  what  is  exclusively  general  and  scriptural  in  its  character 
should  he  introduced  into  the  schools  under  their  charge."  Here,  then,  is 
their  own  testimony  that  they  did  introduce  and  authorize  “  religious  instruc¬ 
tion  ”  in  their  schools.  And  that  they  solved,  with  the  utmost  composure, 
the  difficult  question  on  which  the  sects  disagree,  by  determining  what  hind 
of  '■'•religious  instruction"  is  '■*■  exclusively  general  and  scriptural  in  its  char¬ 
acter."  Neither  could  they  impart  this  “early  religious  instruction”  them¬ 
selves.  They  must  have  left  it  to  their  teachers — and  these,  armed  with 
official  influence,  could  impress  those  “early  religious  instructions”  on  the 
susceptible  minds  of  the  children,  with  the  authority  of  dictators. 

The  Public  School  Society,  in  their  report  for  the  year  1832,  page  10,  de¬ 
scribe  the  effect  of  these  “  early  religious  instructions,”  without,  perhaps, 
intending  to  do  so ;  but  yet  precisely  as  your  petitioners  have  witnessed  it, 
in  such  of  their  children  as  attended  those  schools.  “  The  age  at  which  chil¬ 
dren  are  usually  sent  to  school  affords  a  much  hetter  opportunity  to  mould  their 
minds  to  peculiar  and  exclusive  forms  of  faith  than  any  subsequent  period  of 
life."  In  page  11,  of  the  same  report,  they  protest  against  the  injustice  of 
su])porting  “religion  in  any  shape”  by  public  money ;  as  if  the  “early  re¬ 
ligious  instruction”  which  they  had  themselves  authorized  in  their  schools, 
five  years  before,  was  not  “religion  in  some  shape,”  and  was  not  supported 
by  public  taxation.  They  tell  us  again,  in  more  guarded  language,  “  The 
Trustees  are  deeply  impressed  with  the  importance  of  imbuing  the  youthful 


104 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


mind  with  religious  impressions,  and  they  have  endeavored  to  attain  thi? 
object,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  the  institution  will  admit.”  Report  of  1837. 

In  their  Annual  Report  they  tell  us,  that  “  they  would  not  be  understood 
as  regarding  religious  impressions  in  early  youth  as  unimportant;  on  the 
contrary,  they  desire  to  do  all  which  may  with  propriety  be  done,  to  give  a 
riglit  direction  to  the  minds  of  the  children  intrusted  to  their  care.  Their 
schools  are  uniformly  opened  with  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
class-books  are  such  as  recognize  and  enforce  the  great  and  generally  acknowl¬ 
edged  principles  of  Christianity.”  Page  7. 

In  their  34th  Annual  Report,  for  the  year  1839,  they* pay  a  high  compli¬ 
ment  to  a  deceased  teacher  for  “the  moral  and  religious  influence  exerted 
by  her  over  the  three  hundred  girls  daily  attending  her  school,”  and  tell  us 
that  it  could  not  but  have  had  a  lasting  effect  on  many  of  their  susceptible 
minds.”  Page  7.  And  yet  in  all  these  “early  religious  instructions,  religious 
impressions,  and  religious  influence,”’  essentially  anti-Catholic,  your  petition¬ 
ers  are  to  see  nothing  sectarian;  but  if  in  giving  the  education  which  the 
State  requires,  they  were  to  bring  the  same  influences  to  bear  on  the  “  sus¬ 
ceptible  minds  of  their  own  children,  in  favor,  and  not  against,  their  own 
religion,  then  this  society  contends  that  it  wmuld  be  sectarian ! 

Your  petitioners  regret  that  thei’e  is  no  means  of  ascertaining  to  what 
extent  the  teachers  in  the  schools  of  this  Society  carried  out  the  views  of 
their  principals  on  the  importance  of  conveying  “early  religious  instructions” 
to  the  “  susceptible  minds  ”  of  their  children.  But  they  believe  it  is  in 
their  power  to  prove,  that  in  some  instances,  the  Scriptures  have  been  ex- 
])lained,  as  well  as  read  to  the  pupils. 

Even  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  in  those  schools  your  petitioners  cannot 
regard  otherwise  than  as  sectarian  ;  because  Protestants  would  certainly  con¬ 
sider  as  such  the  introduction  of  the  Catholic  Scriptures,  which  are  different 
from  theirs,  and  the  Catholics  have  the  same  ground  of  objection  when  the 
Protestant  version  is  made  use  of. 

Your  petitioners  have  to  state  further,  as  grounds  of  their  conscientious 
objections  to  those  schools,  that  many  of  the  selections  in  their  elementary 
readijig  lessons  contain  matter  prejudicial  to  the  Catholic  name  and  charac¬ 
ter.  The  term  “  Popery  ”  is  repeatedly  found  in  them.  This  term  is  known 
and  employed  as  one  of  insult  and  contempt  towards  the  Catholic  religion, 
and  it  passes  into  the  minds  of  children  with  the  feeling  of  which  it  is  the 
outward  expression.  Both  the  historical  and  religious  portions  of  the  read¬ 
ing  lessons  are  selected  frorn  Protestant  writers,  whose  prejudices  against 
the  Catholic  religion  render  them  unworthy  of  confidence  in  the  mind  of 
your  petitioners,  at  least  so  far  as  their  own  children  are  concerned. 

The  Public  School  Society  have  heretofore  denied  that  their  books  con¬ 
tained  any  thing  reasonably  objectionable  to  Catholics.  Proofs  of  the  con¬ 
trary  could  be  multiplied,  but  it  is  unnecessary,  as  they  have  recently  retracted 
their  denial,  and  discovered,  after  fifteen  years’  enjoyment  of  their  monopoly, 
that  their  books  do  contain  objectionable  passage.s.  But  they  allege  that  they 
have  proffered  repeatedly  to  make  such  corrections  as  the  Catholic  Clergy 
might  require.  Your  petitioners  conceive  that  such  a  proposal  could  not  be 
carried  into  effect  by  the  Public  School  Society  without  giving  just  ground 
for  exception  to  other  denominations.  Neither  can  they  see  witli  what  con¬ 
sistency  that  Society  can  insist,  as  it  has  done,  on  the  perpetuation  of  its 
monopoly,  when  the  Trustees  thus  avow  their  incompetency  to  present  unex¬ 
ceptionable  books,  without  the  aid  of  the  Catholic,  or  any  other  Clergy. 
They  allege,  indeed,  that  with  the  best  intentions  they  have  been  unable  to 
ascertain  the  passages  which  might  be  offensive  to  Catholics.  With  their 
intentions,  your  petitioners  cannot  enter  into  any  question.  Nevertheless, 
they  submit  to  your  Honorable  Body,  that  this  Society  is  eminently  incom- 


PETITION  OF  THE  CATHOLICS. 


105 


potent  to  the  superintendence  of  public  education,  if  they  could  not  see  that 
the  following  passage  was  unfit  for  the  public  schools,  and  especially  unfit  to 
be  placed  in  the  hands  of  Catholic  children. 

They  will  quote  the  passage  as  one  instance,  taken  from  Putnam’s  Sequel, 
page  266 : 

“  IIuss,  John,  a  zealous  reformer  from  Popery^  who  lived  in  Bohemia, 
towards  the  close  of  the  fourteenth,  and  heyinning  of  the  fifteenth  centuries, 
lie  was  hold  and  pcrseverring  ;  hut  at  length,  trusting  himself  to  the  deceitful 
Catholics,  he  was  hy  them  hr  ought  to  trial,  condemned  as  a  heretic,  and  burnt 
at  the  stalce.'’' 

The  Public  School  Society  may  be  excused  for  not  knowing  the  histori¬ 
cal  inaccuracies  of  this  passage ;  but  surely  assistance  of  the  Catholic 
Clergy  could  not  have  been  necessary  to  an  understanding  of  the  words 
“  deceitful,”  as  applied  to  all  who  profess  the  religion  of  your  petitioners. 

For  these  reasons,  and  others  of  the  same  kind,  your  petitioners  cannot, 
in  conscience,  and  consistently  with  their  sense  of  duty  to  God,  and  to 
their  offspring,  intrust  the  Public  School  Society  with  the  office  of  giving 
‘‘  a  right  direction  to  the  minds  of  their  children.”  And  yet  this  Society 
claims  that  office,  and  claims  for  the  discharge  of  it  the  Common  School 
Funds,  to  which  your  petitioners,  in  common  with  other  citizens,  are  con¬ 
tributors.  In  so  far  as  they  are  contributors,  they  are  not  only  deprived 
of  any  benefit  in  return,  but  their  money  is  employed  to  the  damage  and 
detriment  of  their  religion,  in  the  minds  of  their  own  children,  and  of 
the  rising  generation  of  the  community  at  large.  The  contest  is  between 
the  guarantied  rights,  civil  and  religious,  of  the  citizen  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  pretensions  of  the  Public  School  Society  on  the  other  ;  and  whilst 
it  has  been  silently  going  on  for  years,  your  petitioners  would  call  the 
attention  of  your  Honorable  Body  to  its  consequences  on  that  class  for 
whom  the  benefits  of  public  education  are  most  essential — the  children  of 
the  poor. 

This  class  (your  petitioners  speak  only  so  far  as  relates  to  their  own 
denomination),  after  a  brief  experience  of  the  schools  of  the  Public  School 
Society,  naturally  and  deservedly  withdrew  all  confidence  from  it.  Hence 
the  establishment  by  your  petitioners  of  schools  for  the  education  of  the 
poor.  The  expense  necessary  for  this,  was  a  second  taxation,  required  not' 
by  the  laws  of  the  land,  but  by  the  no  less  imperious  demands  of  their 
conscience. 

They  were  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  seeing  their  children  growing 
uj)  in  entire  ignorance,  or  else  taxing  themselves  anew  for  private  schools, 
whilst  the  funds  provided  for  education,  and  contributed  in  part  by  them¬ 
selves,  were  given  over  to  the  Public  School  Society,  and  by  them  employed 
as  has  been  stated  above. 

Now  your  jietitioners  respectfully  submit,  that  without  this  confidence, 
no  body  of  meq  can  discharge  the  duties  of  education  as  intended  by  the 
State,  and  required  by  the  people.  The  Public  School  Society  are,  and 
have  been  at  all  times,  conscious  that  they  had  not  the  confidence  of  the 
poor.  In  their  twenty-eighth  report,  they  appeal  to  the  ladies  of  New 
York  to  create  or  procure  it,  by  the  “persuasive  eloquence  of  female 
kindness page  5.  And  from  this  they  pass,  on  the  next  page,  to  the 
more  efficient  eloquence  of  coercion  under  penalties  and  privations  to  be 
visited  on  all  persons,  “  whether  emigrants  or  otherwise,”  who  being  in  the 
circumstances  of  poverty  referred  to,  should  not  send  their  children  to 
some  “  public  or  other  daily  school.”  In  their  twenty- seventh  report, 
pages  15  and  16,  they  plead  for  the  doctrine,  and  recommend  it  to  public 
favor  by  the  circumstance  that  it  will  affect  but  “  few  natives.”  But  why 
should  it  be  necessary  at  all,  if  they  possessed  that  confidence  of  the  poor, 


106 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


vntliout  which  they  need  never  hope  to  succeed  ?  So  well  are  they  con 
vinced  of  this,  that  no  longer  ago  than  last  year,  they  gave  up  all  hope  of 
inspiring  it,  and  loudly  call  for  coercion  hy  “  the  strong  arm  of  the  civil 
poicer  ”  to  supply  its  deficiency.  Your  jietitioners  will  close  this  part  of 
their  statement  with  the  expression  of  their  surprise  and  regret  that  gen¬ 
tlemen  who  are  themselves  indebted  much  to  the  respect  which  is  properly 
cherished  for  the  rights  of  conscience,  should  be  so  unmindful  of  the  same 
rights  in  the  case  of  your  petitioners.  Many  of  them  are  by  religious 
principle  so  pacific  that  they  would  not  take  up  arms  in  the  defence  of 
the  liberties  of  their  country,  though  she  shoultl  call  them  to  her  aid ;  and 
yet,  they  do  not  hesitate  to  invoke  the  “strong  arm  of  the  civil  power” 
for  the  purpose  of  abridging  the  private  liberties  of  their  fellow-citizens, 
who  may  feel  equally  conscientious. 

Your  ''petitioners  have  to  deiilore,  as  a  consequence  of  this  state  of 
things,  the  ignorance  and  vice  to  which  hundreds,  nay  thousands  of  their 
children  are  exposed.  They  have  to  regret,  also,  that  the  education  which 
they  can  provide,  under  the  disadvantages  to  which  they  have  been  sub¬ 
jected,  is  not  as  efficient  as  it  should  be.  But  should  your  Honorable 
llody  be  pleased  to  designate  their  schools  as  entitled  to  receive  a  just 
projiortion  of  the  public  funds  which  belong  to  your  petitioners  in  common 
with  other  citizens,  their  schools  could  be  improved  for  those  who  attend, 
others  now  growing  up  in  ignorance  could  be  received,  and  the  ends  of  the 
Legislature  could  be  accomplished — a  result  which  is  manifestly  hopeless 
under  the  present  system. 

Your  petitioners  will  now  invite  the  attention  of  your  Honorable  Body 
to  the  objections  and  misrepresentations  that  have  been  urged  by  the  Pub¬ 
lic  School  Society  to  granting  the  claim  of  your  petitioners.  It  is  urged 
by  them  that  it  would  be  appropriating  money  raised  by  general  taxation 
to  the  support  of  the  Catholic  religion.  Your  petitioners  join  issue  with 
them,  and  declare  unhesitatingly,  that  if  this  objection  can  be  established 
the  claim  shall  be  forthwith  abandoned.  -It  is  objected  that  though  we 
are  taxed  as  citizens,  we  ap2)ly  for  the  benefits  of  education  as  “  Catholics.” 
Your  petitioners,  to  remove  this  difficulty,  beg  to  be  considered  in  their 
.application  in  the  identical  cajiacity  in  which  they  are  taxed — viz.  :  as  citi¬ 
zens  of  the  commonwealth.  It  has  been  contended  by  the  Public  School 
Society,  that  the  law  disqualifies  schools  which  admit  any  profession  of 
religion,  from  receiving  any  encouragements  from  the  School  Fund.  Your 
petitioners  have  two  solutions  for  this  pretended  difficulty.  1.  Your  peti¬ 
tioners  are  unable  to  discover  any  such  disqualification  in  the  law,  which 
merely  delegates  to  your  Honorable  Body  the  authority  and  discretion  of 
determining  what  schools  or  societies  shall  be  entitled  to  its  bounty. 
3.  Your  jietitioners  are  willing  to  fulfill  the  eonditions  of  the  law  so  far  as 
religious  teaching  is  proscribed  during  school  hours.  In  fine,  your  jietition- 
ers,  to  remove  all  objections,  are  willing  that  the  material  organization  of 
their  schools,  and  the  disbursements  of  the  funds  allowed  for  them,  shall 
be  conducted,  and  made,  by  persons  unconnected  with  the  religion  of 
your  jietitioners,  even  the  Public  School  Society,  if  it  should  please  your 
Honorable  Body  to  apjioint  them  for  that  purjiose.  The  public  may  then 
be  assured  that  the  money  will  not  be  aj)plied  to  the  supjiort  of  the  Catho¬ 
lic  religion. 

It  is  deemed  necessary  by  your  petitioners  to  save  the  Public  School  So¬ 
ciety  the  necessity  of  future  misconception,  thus  to  state  the  things  which 
are  not  petitioned  for.  The  members  of  that  Society,  who  have  shown 
themselves  so  impressed  with  the  importance  of  conveying  their  notions  of 
“  early  religious  instruction  ”  to  the  “  susceptible  minds  ”  of  Catholic  children, 
can  have  no  objection  that  the  parents  of  the  children,  and  teachers  in  whom 


107 


I 

PETITION  OF  THE  CATHOLICS.  • 


the  parents  have  confidence,  should  do  the  same,  jirovided  no  law  is  violated 
thereby,  and  no  disposition  evinced  to  bring  the  children  of  other  denomi¬ 
nations  within  its  influence. 

Your  petitioners,  therefore,  pray  that  your  Honorable  Body  will  be  pleased 
to  designate,  as  among  the  schools  entitled  to  jiarticipate  in  the  Common 
School  Fund,  upon  complying  with  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  the 
ordinances  of  the  corporation  of  the  city— or  for  such  other  relief  as  to  your 
Honorable  Body  shall  seem  meet — St.  Patrick’s  School,  St.  Peter’s  School, 
St.  Mary’s  School,  St.  Joseph’s  School,  St.  James’  School,  St.  Nicholas’ 
School,  Transfiguration  Church  School,  and  St.  John’s  School. 

And  your  petitioners  further  request,  in  the  event  of  your  Honorable  Body’s 
determining  to  hear  your  petitioners,  on  the  subject  of  their  petition,  that  such 
time  may  be  appointed  as  may  be  most  agreeable  to  your  Honorable  Body, 
and  that  a  full  session  of  your  Honorable  Board  be  convened  for  that  purpose. 

And  your  petitioners,  &c. 


THOMAS  O’CONNOR, 
Chairman. 

GREGORY  DILLON, 
ANDREW  CARRIGAN, 
PETER  DUFFY, 

Vice-  diairmen. 

B.  O’Conner,  I 

James  Kelly,  >  Secretaries. 

J.  M’Loughlest,  ) 


Of  a  general  meeting  of  'the 
Catholics  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  convened  in  the  school¬ 
room  of  St.  James’  Church, 
Sept.  31,  1840. 


Meeting  in  the  Basement  of  St.  James’s  Church, 
October  5th,  1840. 

On  Monday  evening,  Oct.  5th,  the  Catholics  of  this  city  again 
met  in  the  basement  of  St.  James’s  Church,  in  great  numbers,  by 
adjournment  of  the  meeting  of  that  day  fortnight,  from  which  a 
memorial  had  been  sent  to  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  setting  forth  their 
claim  to  a  portion  of  the  Common  School  Fund  for  the  education 
of  Catholic  children.  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  was  again  called 
to  the  chair,  and  the  Secretaries  were  also  re-elected. 


108  •  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 

James  McKeon,  Esq.,  one  of  the  committee  appointed  to  present 
the  memorial  to  the  Common  Council,  reported  that  they  had  dis¬ 
charged  the  duties  assigned  to  them,  and  that  it  was  highly  probable 
that  an  eai’ly  day  would  be  fixed  to  hear  the  arguments  of  the 
Catholics  and  those  that  opposed  their  claim. 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  then  presented  himself  and  Avas 
received  with  enthusiastic  plaudits.  He  said  the  question  was  now 
in  the  hands  of  those  whom  the  Legislature  had  appointed  to  dis¬ 
pose  of  the  Common  School  Fund ;  they  had  presented  their  claim 
to  that  body  with  confidence,  but  it  was  not  to  be  supposed  that 
their  demand  Avould  be  granted  ivithout  opposition ;  it  was  not  cer¬ 
tain  they  would  be  conceded  at  all.  Nevertheless  they  had  taken 
the  only  means  worthy  of  their  purpose,  by  applying  with  confi¬ 
dence  and  with  firmness  and  ivith  determination  to  those  having  in 
the  first  instance  the  power  to  apply  a  remedy  to  the  evil  of  ivhich 
Catholics  complain.  The  question  as  it  will  define  itself  before  that 
Board,  when  stripped  of  aU  the  mystification  in  which  their  oppo¬ 
nents  had  enveloped  it,  was  an  exceedingly  simple  one.  It  will  be 
a  question  whether  it  Avas  the  intention  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  New  York  to  fix  on  the  population  of  this  city,  and  to  sup¬ 
port  by  taxation  reaching  to  every  citizen,  a  system  of  education 
from  which  one-fifth  of  the  population  can  derive  no  benefit?  for  he 
thought  he  might  say  that  Catholic  children  formed  one-fifth  of  those 
who  were  subject  to  this  taxation.  And  if  this  system  is  to  be  so 
constituted,  as  they  found  it  to  be,  that  Catholics  in  their  con¬ 
sciences  cannot  allow  their  children  to  participate  in  its  benefits, 
then  the  question  Avill  be  Avere  they  excluded  or  not  by  an  act  of 
the  Legislature  ?  It  is  plain  they  were  not,  unless  indeed  the  Legis¬ 
lature  intended  that  they  should  pay  for  education  and  receive  no 
benefit  in  return.  That  the  Legislature  did  not  intend^//iai!  it  could 
not  have  intended ;  and  therefore  between  the  act  of  the  Legislature 
and  the  schoolmaster  there  must  be  some  inquiry  to  pervert  the 
stream  of  justice.  [Applause.]  The  objections  that  have  been  raised 
by  the  Public  School  Society  are  objections  Avhich  sound  alarmingly 
in  the*ear,  and  which  from  circumstances  which  are  easily  accounted 
for,  are  apt  to  turn  the  judgments  of  even  Avell-disposed  men  off' 
their  equilibrium — he  alluded  to  the  clamor  of  sectarianism,  and  that 
Catholics  wish  civil  money  to  be  appropriated  to  the  purposes  of 
religion.  The  sound  Avas  calculated  to  alarm,  but  it  required  only 
the  exercise  of  common  sense  to  dissolve  these  objections  into  thin 
air,  for  Catholics  wanted  no  money  from  the  State  of  NeAV  York  for 
purposes  of  religion,  but  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  claimed 
from  them — for  the  purposes  of  education  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
term.  The  education  the  Catholics  were  told  was  ready — the  foun¬ 
tain  floAvs  constantly,  but  care  was  taken  to  dilute  the  current  before 
it  reached  them,  so  that  they  could  not  taste  it.  [Applause.] 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOJr. 


109 


They  were  told  the  doors  were  open  to  them ;  they  knew  they 
were,  but  if  they  entered  they  went  in  to  learn  to  live  in  ignorance 
of  all  that  was  sacred  and  honorable  in  the  Catholic  name  ;  if  they 
entered  they  knew  it  was  to  have  Protestant  persons  and  Protestant 
writers  brought  up  for  their  admiration  ;  it  was  to  make  their  chil¬ 
dren  familiar  with  things  that  were  not  theirs,  and  to  leave  them  in 
utter  ignorance  of  everything  Catholic,  unless  it  was  to  bring  them 
in  to  grace  some  tragic  incident  and  they  were  only  brought  in  then 
as  executioners.  There  were  some  respectable  Catholic  writei's, 
though  perhaps  their  opponents  knew  it  not,  that  wrote  with  flow¬ 
ing  pens  in  the  departments  of  history,  morals,  legislation,  and  gen¬ 
eral  literature,  but  from  the  books  put  into  the  hands  of  their  chil¬ 
dren  in  these  schools  they  knew  it  not,  but  they  did  know  about 
Cranmer’s  execution,  and  the  betrayal  by  the  deceitful  Catholics  of 
John  Huss;  and  if  it  were  not  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  them  in 
thus,  their  children  would  not  know  that  Catholicism  was  older  than 
Mormonism.  [Laughter.]  He  had  been  exceedingly  amused  on 
looking  at  the  manner  the  opponents  of  their  claim  maintained  their 
exclusive  right  to  the  money  which  Catholics  contributed  in  common 
with  other  citizens ;  but  with  a  great  deal  of  talent  and  a  great  deal 
of  confidence  in  the  prejudices  of  the  community,  to  which  they  ap¬ 
pealed,  still  it  was  difficult  for  them  to  make  out  a  clear  case,  even 
to  satisfy  those  prejudices.  He  would  look  at  the  system  as  it  is. 

They  were  told  that  the  state  intended  to  exclude  religion  and 
make  the  fund  applicable  solely  to  civil  purposes — solely  to  secular 
education — very  well.  If  they  excluded  all  religion  then  they  bring 
lip  the  children  like  heathens,  and  they  banish  Christianity  and  leave 
to  infidelity  the  whole  benefit  of  this  system  of  education.  And  he 
did  not  think  it  probable  that  the  Christians  of  New  York — that  the 
Protestants  of  New  York — would  raise  a  fund  for  education  from 
which  only  infidelity  could  receive  the  benefit.  That  was  one 
ground.  But  then  they  were  told  again  that  religion  was  not  ex¬ 
cluded  from  instruction.  If  they  then  have  taught  religion  how 
have  they  been  able  to  go  before  the  Common  Council  and  ask  for 
money?  Had  Catholics  less  right  than  the  celebrated  body  of 
Quakers  ?  And  if  the  office  of  instructors  was  to  be  conceded  at  all 
to  whom  did  it  belong  ?  Hid  it  become  Catholics  to  be  the  instruc¬ 
tors  of  Protestant  children,  or  Protestants  to  become  the  instructors 
of  Catholic  children  ?  Surely  if  it  was  a  crime  at  all  it  must  be  a 
greater  crime  in  the  managers  of  the  present  schools  than  in  Catho¬ 
lics  to  teach  religion  to  Catholic  children ;  and  it  was  only  in  this 
way  that  they  could  throw  the  whole  weight  of  the  charge  of  giv¬ 
ing  instruction  on  infidels,  so  that  it  carried  water  on  both  shoul¬ 
ders.  Before  the  Common  Council  their  opponents  were  scrupulous 
to  a  nicety,  from  a  fear  that  its  money  should  go  to  encourage  and 
maintain  religion;  but  they  (the  Catliolics)  went  in  the  name  of 
religion  and  conscience  which  did  not  allow  them  to  educate  their 
children  in  these  schools ;  and  because  they  went  in  the  name  of 
conscience  they  were  told,  Oh,  the  fund  is  intended  for  civil  educa- 


110 


AHOHBISHOP  HUGHES* 


tioH,  and  if  you  allow  a  penny  to  go  for  the  support  of  religion,  you 
violate  the  charter,  for  it  says  so  and  so.  Then  we  (Catholics) 
charge  them  witli  infidelity.  And  how  do  they  answer?  They  say 
Catholics  give  religious  instruction.  Do  they  (the  Trustees  of  the 
Public  Schools)  not  admit  that  they  do  likewise  in  their  report? 
And  that  shows  that  they  are  aware  of  the  importance  of  early  re¬ 
ligious  instruction ;  but  they  say  that  none  but  what  is  general  in 
its  character  is  given  xmder  their  charge ;  so  that  while  the  doctors 
are  disputing  about  what  is  religion,  the  managers  of  these  schools 
have  no  difficulty  in  determining  at  once.  It  is  a  pity  the  commu¬ 
nity  does  not  send  its  difficulties  to  the  Public  School  Society  for 
they  can  soon  decide  what  religion  is.  Does  not  each  sect  contend 
that  its  doctrines  are  purely  Scriptural  ?  And  do  not  the  others 
dispute  it  ?  But  here  the  Trustees  of  the  Public  School  Society  de¬ 
cide  for  them  at  once ;  and  while  they  contend,  and  contend  truly, 
that  the  State  has  provided  that  none  of  this  money  should  go  for 
the  purposes  of  religion,  they  have  a  religion  of  their  own  made  up, 
as  they  say,  from  what  is  Scriptural.  When  Catholics  go  before 
Coxmcil  and  ask  for  their  proportion  of  this  fund,  “  Oh,”  says  the 
School  Society,  “  it  is  provided  only  for  secular  education.”  But  is 
that  their  own  practice  ?  They  have  one  reply  for  Catholics  and 
another  for  Protestants ;  they  have  piety  enough  not  to  wish  infi¬ 
delity  to  have  the  predominance,  and  to  please  the  Protestants  they 
introduce  religion — Scriptural  religion  as  they  call  it — and  when 
Catholics  find  fault  with  them  and  wish  to  teach  their  own  children, 
they  say  that  the  introduction  of  religion  into  the  schools  will  forfeit 
all  right  to  it,  for  it  was  not  intended  or  designed  for  religious  pur¬ 
poses.  In  their  report  and  remonstrance  to  the  petition  of  Catho¬ 
lics  they  say,  “  this  fund  is  purely  of  a  civil  character.”  If  so  it 
means  that  it  is  intended  to  teach  children  to  read,  and  write,  and 
the  mathematics  ;  and  there  is  not  much  religion  in  these  sciences  ; 
but  they  are  not  so  careful  to  abstain  from  religion,  for  religion  is 
religious  instruction,  and  that  they  give  in  their  own  way  and  thus, 
in  the  expenditure  of  this  money,  which  is  appropriated  to  civil 
instruction,  they  contradict  themselves ;  and  we  shall  see  how  they 
get  out  of  the  contradiction. 

They  knew  they  had  done  this  from  the  commencement,  and  the 
first  sound  of  alarm  came  from  themselves.  They  said,  “  Oh,  there 
is  so  mxich  preipidice  in  the  community !”  and  if  Catholics  were 
timid,  they  might  be  crushed  down  by  that  fear.  But  if  there  Avas 
prejudice,  let  its  abutments  be  taken  away,  so  that  nothing  but 
tinith  Avould  remain ;  and  if,  Avhile  their  claim  was  based  on  truth, 
knowing  the  Avrong,  it  Avas  still  inflicted,  let  it  be  on  the  record, 
that  the  Avorld  might  knoAV  that  Catholics  Avere  opjjressed  without 
any  gi-ound  of  oppression.  [Applause.]  He  said  this  because  the 
gentlemen  Avere  going  from  one  point  to  another  in  their  statements 
from  time  to  time  of  Avhat  Avas  the  true  ground  on  Avhich  the  right 
of  the  citizen  was  based.  There  is  in  this  country  the  principle 
that  no  man  should  sutler  for  the  free  exercise  of  his  freedom  of 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


Ill 


conscience ;  that  no  man  should  suffer  in  his  person  or  in  his  repu¬ 
tation,  though  the  liw  cannot  arrest  the  j)en  of  the  bigotted  slan¬ 
derer,  yet  that  is  the  spirit  of  the  law  that  no  man  shall  be  tempo¬ 
rarily  held  accountable  for  those  things  which  relate  to  his  eternal 
destiny,  for  they  were  things  between  man  and  his  God,  and  there¬ 
fore  the  rights  of  conscience  were  sacred  and  inviolate.  But  if  that 
were  the  case,  how  can  it  be  insisted  on  that  Catholics  shall  violate 
their  rights  of  conscience  at  the  risk  of  eternal  consequences  ?  How 
could  it  be  pretended  that  Catholics  could  submit  to  a  system  about 
which  they  were  not  consulted  ?  And  how  was  it  that  the  support¬ 
ers  of  the  existing  system  could  insist  that  Catholics  were  wrong, 
and  that  they  were  right?  How,  since  conscience  cannot  be  bent 
or  modified  to  suit  the  system.  Catholics  hoped  to  cause  such  a 
modification  of  the  system  that  it  would  suit  the  consciences  of  all 
[Applause.]  That  was  the  ground  on  which  Catholics  stood.  But 
they  were  told  that  Catholics  held  it  to  be  an  essential  part  of  edu¬ 
cation  that  the  Catholic  religion  and  dogmas  should  be  taught. 
They  knew  that  schools  were  supported  by  the  State  for  the 
pose  of  imjiarting  that  part  of  secular  knowledge  that  Avould  be  ad¬ 
vantageous.  But  they  did  not  believe  it  was  designed  by  the  State 
to  establish  a  system  of  teaching  by  which  all  that  was  good  would 
be  extinguished  in  the  process.  They  did  not  desire  the  jmblic 
money  to  be  expended  in  the  teaching  of  their  dogmas,  but  they 
also  did  not  wish  to  see  it  expended  in  the  support  of  a  system  by 
which  the  bud  of  faith  would  be  nipped  which  was  springing  up  in 
the  hearts  of  Catholic  children.  But  then  they  were  told  that  Cath¬ 
olics  might  teach  their  children  after  school  hours,  and  on  the  sev¬ 
enth  day.  But,  after  six  days’  teaching  in  these  schools,  every  one 
must  be  well  aware  how  feeble  will  be  the  impressions  of  religion  ; 
how  feeble  will  be  the  instructions  of  the  pastor  to  a  child  that  has 
imbibed  the  jirejudices  which  the  lessons  of  the  school  were  calcu¬ 
lated  to  create ;  how  feeble  would  be  the  admonition  ;  how  feeble 
the  inculcation  of  the  dogmas  of  their  faith,  when  the  child  was 
already  biased  against  it  by  the  lessons  he  was  taught,  by  the  asso¬ 
ciations  to  which  he  was  exposed,  and  by  the  lectures  of  the 
teachers  on  the  elucidation  of  the  school  lessons.  Why,  the  child 
would  be  found  to  be  half  a  Protestant  before  he  was  half  a 
scholar. 

But  then  they  were  told  that  if  this  money  were  given  to  Cath¬ 
olics,  every  other  denomination  would  look  for  it  too.  And  if  they 
did,  he  did  not  see  that  any  great  harm  would  result  from  it.  If 
any  other  denomination  had  the  same  scruples  of  conscience,  he 
should  say  immediately  they  were  entitled  to  it ;  but  it  did  not  aj:)- 
pear  that  they  had.  They  had  proof  in  the  remonstrances  that  were 
sent  in  against  the  claim  made  by  the  Catholics,  that  they  approved 
of  the  present  school  system.  They  were  satisfied  with  the  system, 
and  their  scholars  were  attending  under  it,  wdiile  the  children  of 
Catholics  did  not.  attend  ;  so  that,  by  conceding  the  claim  of  the 
Catholics,  they  would  have  the  same  schools  as  before,  with  this 


112 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


difference,  that  the  children  of  Catholics  that  'vrere  now  without 
education,  or  but  partially  educated,  would  have  a  chance,  and  the 
ends  of  tlie  Legislature  would  be  carried  out.  But  suppose  it 
w'ould  have  the  effect  of  breaking  up  the  system,  he  did  not  think 
any  great  calamity  would  be  produced  by  such  a  result,  or  any 
great  suffering  or  disaster  to  the  country  or  to  the  community.  But 
the  evils  had  been  magnified,  and  in  the  j)amphlet  wLich  had  been 
]>ublished  they  had  spoken  of  the  bickerings  that  would  be  pursued 
— and  they  knew  what  they  had  been  in  other  countries — that  it 
would  lead  to  contention  and  strife,  and  civil  war  and  bloodshed. 
Well,  but  this  fund  was  once  divided,  and  there  were  no  such  con¬ 
sequences.  It  should  be  a  part  of  education  in  America,  that  men 
should  know  the  rights  of  conscience  of  others,  and  that  they  should 
learn  to  respect  them.  But  wdien  they  gather  children  of  all  de¬ 
nominations  together  into  these  Common  Schools,  and  under  pre¬ 
tence  that  if  they  are  not  so  taught,  they  are  liable  to  fight  in 
the  street  Avhen  they  meet,  they  lay  down  a  principle  different  from 
that  inculcated  as  a  part  of  the  system.  If  they  are  taught  tolera¬ 
tion — if  they  are  taught  that  all  men  are  not  born  to  think  alike — 
that  there  are  thousands  of  subjects  on  which  they  may  differ,  and 
that  religion  is  one  on  which  they  are  not  only  at  liberty,  but  are 
justified  and  above  all  censure  in  fulfilling  the  dictates  of  their  con¬ 
sciences,  then  they  grow  up  with  a  spirit  of  tolerance  to  others  with 
whom,  when  they  are  men,  they  have  to  mingle,  and  who  differ  in 
opinion  from  them.  But  when  these  principles  of  the  schools  are 
insisted  upon,  is  it  not  in  fact  proclaiming  to  their  children,  “  Be- 
w'are  of  religion,  or  you  wall  all  get  to  quarrelling” — [laughter] — it 
is  not  to  be  introduced,  or  you  will  get  to  civil  w'ar  and  bloodshed, 
as  they  did  in  Germany  when  they  got  into  a  thirty  years’  war ! 
But  thus  it  was  with  the  public  School  Society ;  they  had  not  one 
solid  ground  to  take  against  the  claim  wLich  the  Catholics  made. 
But,  to  avoid  any  difficulty,  the  Catholics  said.  Give  us  our  books 
and  teachers  in  whom  wm  have  confidence,  and  let  the  School 
Society  itself  be  the  guardian  of  our  schools,  and  see  that  the  money 
be  faithfully  appropriated,  and  such  instruction  given  as  would 
qualify  the  children  to  be  good  citizens ;  and  then,  when  their  minds 
and  their  intellects  Avere  stored  and  trained,  and  knowing  their  duty 
to  God  and  to  their  fellow-men,  then  it  w^as  they  Avould  have  the 
prospect  of  their  children  being  good,  and  virtuous,  and  respect¬ 
able  citizens.  So  that,  putting  aside  all  these  difficulties,  the 
question  would  present  itself  naturally  and  necessarily  before  the 
Common  Council  and  simply  on  these  grounds:  Were  Catho¬ 
lics,  against  their  convictions,  to  be  compelled  to  support  and  sub¬ 
mit  to  a  system  wffiich  suited  those  gentlemen  (the  School  Society), 
w’ho  were  not  Catholics,  and  Avho  had  scarcely  a  feeling  on  this  pai’- 
ticular  subject  in  common  wdth  Catholics?  Were  they  to  insist 
upon  Catholics  paying  a  tax  from  which,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
guaranteed  rights  of  conscience,  they  could  receive  no  benefit  ?  Or 
w'ere  they  prepared  to  relieve  Catholics  from  the  tax?  Or,  in  a 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


113 


vrorcl,  if  they  Avill  compel  Catholics  to  pay  the  tax,  seeing  the  diffi¬ 
culties  that  exist,  will  they  give  to  Catholics  their  proportion  of  the 
money  'which  the  Legislature  has  set  apart  for  that  purpose  ?  The 
question  reduces  itself  to  these  simple  points  :  Free  Catholics  from 
taxation  for  schools  of  any  description,  and  they  would  stand  ready 
with  the  money  thus  saved  to  help  their  own  schools,  and  to  devote 
it  to  education  amongst  themselves.  But  if  not,  and  it  would  be 
impracticable,  for  no  denomination  could  be  exempted  from  a  gen¬ 
eral  taxation.  In  the  next  place,  'would  they  allow  Catholics  to 
have  the  benefit  of  education,  without  the  necessity  of  violating 
their  consciences  ;  and  if  they  would  not,  then  there  was  no  alterna¬ 
tive  ;  they  'were  Catholics,  and  it  was  a  pity  that  their  consciences 
would  not  allow  them  to  enjoy  the  system  which  suited  others ;  but 
they  were  Catholics,  and  their  consciences  W'ere  not  to  be  respected. 
It  would  be  impossible,  on  any  other  ground,  to  deny  their  rights. 
It  might  not  be  couched  in  that  language,  but  it  would  be  that  in 
substance :  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  Catholics  were  anxious  for 
education ;  and  while  the  managers  of  these  schools  pretend  that 
they  Avill  give  the  education,  what  is  the  fact  ?  It  is  obvious,  be¬ 
fore  their  eyes,  that  where  schools  are  open,  and  teachers  are  ready, 
and  money  is  expended,  there  are  hundreds  and  thousands  growing 
up  in  the  condition  which  the  Legislature  wished  to  remove.  If 
they  are  willing  to  educate  Catholic  children,  why  not  show  their 
willingness  ?  If  they  were  animated  by  a  patriotic  spirit,  would 
they  not  yield  a  little  to  what  they  call  the  prejudices  of  Catholics, 
but  which  Catholics  know  to  be  right,  to  be  the  love  of  truth  ? 
But  those  men  would  rather  leave  hundreds  and  thousands  in  per¬ 
manent  ignorance,  than  that  one  tile  should  be  removed  from  those 
palaces  which  they  have  built  for  their  own  children.  That  was  the 
condition  of  the  question  at  this  time.  What  would  be  the  decision 
of  the  tribunal  before  which  it  had  to  be  discussed  and  decided 
they  knew  not.  They  had  reason  to  hope  that  it  would  be  a  just 
one,  a  conscientious  one,  and  a  liberal  one;  but  at  the  same  time  no 
explanation,  no  pleading,  no  specious  exertions  on  the  subject  could 
ever  reconcile  them  to  a  system  which  had  done  so  much  to  destroy 
their  enjoyment  of  their  religious  rights  as  this  has  done.  It  was  in 
vain  to  say  “  amend  the  books  for  if  they  were  permitted  to  do  it 
this  year  by  courtesy,  next  year  there  might  be  put  in  a  set  of  cor- 
jmrators  that  would  put  in  again  what  they  now  took  out.  What 
was  courtesy?  Why,  they  (the  Catholics)  might  sit  in  judgment 
on  the  books,  and  perhaps,  when  they  had  corrected  them,  their 
corrections  might  be  again  corrected,  and  the  books  left  as  they 
were  before.  What  security,  then  could  be  given  to  Catholics  for 
the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  ?  And  while  their  rights  were  denied 
on  grounds  on  which  Catholics  did  not  pretend  to  establish  them ; 
■while  it  was  pretended  before  the  Council  that  Catholics  would 
teach  religion,  and  therefore  were  disqualified,  they  did  that  them¬ 
selves  which  they  said  they  expected  Catholics  would  do,  and  for 
which  they  opposed  the  Catholic  claim.  They  have  introduced 
8 


114 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


religion,  nnd  it  ivas  impossible  they  could  escape  from  the  position 
of  adopting  a  cold  water  religion  in  theory,  and  yet  in  practice  incul¬ 
cating  a  religion  to  suit  their  own  ideas  in  these  schools.  As  well 
and  as  lawfully  might  they  adopt  a  system  of  education  supported 
by  the  State,  wdiich  should  recognize  the  system  of  any  one  denom¬ 
ination,  and  disavow  all  other  denominations.  They  told  Catholics 
they  did  not  teach  any  particular  religion  ;  then  they  had  better 
teach  none  at  all,  for  any  religion  they  could  teach  was  far  opposed 
to  that  of  Catholics,  who  did  not  recognize  them  as  men  fit  to  go 
into  the  pulpit  and  teach  their  children.  Let  them  teach  those  by 
whom  they  were  recognized  as  teachers,  but  not  the  children  of 
Catholics.  He  had  made  these  remarks,  as  it  were,  as  a  kind  of 
brief  review  of  the  whole  ground  on  which  the  question  stood,  so 
that  it  might  remain  fixed  on  the  mind  of  every  one  of  them  as  a 
simple  point.  The  Catholics  asked  for  nothing  but  what  was  their 
right,  and  what  was  just ;  and  if  there  was  any  other  light  by  which 
it  could  be  shown  that  their  claim  was  unjust  and  not  right,  they 
should  have  no  disposition  to  prosecute  it.  But  in  the  absence  of 
such  conviction,  they  could  not  but  feel,  if  their  right  ^vas  still 
withheld  from  them,  that  it  could  be  but  for  one  reason,  and  that 
was,  that  Protestant  prejiidice  was  more  powerful  than  truth  and 
justice.  [Applause.]  But  he  feared  not  the  issue.  The  question 
had  made  great  progress  since  it  was  elucidated  by  their  pnlDlic  dis¬ 
cussions,  and  now  scarcely  a  man  that  he  had  spoken  to,  that  was 
competent  to  judge  on  the  subject,  that  did  not  say,  “  Sir,  you  are 
right ;  there  can  be  no  objection  to  the  concession  of  your  claim.” 
But  he  knew  there  was  in  the  less  intellectual  portion  of  the  com¬ 
munity  a  substratum  of  prejudice.  He  was  aware,  however,  that 
this  was  not  the  case  among  the  enlightened  and  the  liberal — among 
men  of  high,  and  just,  and  enlarged,  and  patriotic  views — and  it 
was  from  these  that  public  opinion  was  alone  worth  accepting. 
[Great  and  long-continued  applause.] 


Meeting  in  the  Basement  of  St.  James’s  Church, 
October  19th,  1840, 

Aisr  adjourned  meeting  of  the  Catholics  was  held  in  the  basement 
of  St.  James’s  Church  on  Monday  evening,  Oct.  19th,  when  the 
otficers  of  previous  meetings  were  re-elected.  The  Right  Rev, 
Bishop  Hughes  was  receiv  ed  on  his  entrance  Avith  the  warmest  ex¬ 
pression  of  afiectionate  regard. 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  came  forward  amidst  gTeat  and 
general  plaudits.  He  commenced  by  observing  that  there  was  no¬ 
thing  to  alarm  them  in  the  conclusion  at  which  some  seem  already 
to  ha^  e  arrived,  or  respecting  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  tri¬ 
bunal  before  which  they  had  laid  claim.  There  was  nothing  in  it  to 


THE  SCHOOL  QHESTIOIT. 


115 


alarm,  and  for  himself  there  was  nothing  to  surprise,  because  he  had 
obseiu  ed  as  they  had  progressed  on  this  question,  and  whilst  they 
had  made  some  inroad  on  the  advanced  posts  of  public  opinion,  here 
and  there,  that  the  concentrated  and  monopolizing  power  which  Avas 
opposed  to  them  had  been  gathering  its  strength,  and  had  been  pre¬ 
paring  to  exert  it  to  the  utmost.  They  (the  School  Society)  feel  as 
if  the  charm  should  be  broken,  the  dazzling  prospect  on  which  their 
eye  had  rested  so  long  with  complacency,  the  prospect  of  having 
seventy  thousand  children  for  a  few  years  longer  to  be  moulded  at 
their  discretion,  and  of  having  a  larger  number — even  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  dollars  for  the  purpose  of  so  moulding  them,  would 
disappear  from  before  them.  Such  a  dazzling  prospect  as  this  was 
enough  to  tempt  men  of  their  philanthropy  to  cling  to  the  system 
and  that  they  do  cling  to  it  they  were  assured,  for,  counting  on  that 
futurity  they  had  multiplied  schools,  and  they  had  not  only  multi¬ 
plied  schools  but  they  had  built  other  and  more  splendid  edifices — 
he  scarcely  knew  what  to  call  thein — 

Mr.  O’CoNNOE  (chairman) — Sessions  houses. 

The  Bishop.  Yes,  sessions  houses,  for  the  purpose  of  legislating 
into  all  future  time  for  the  education  of  the  children  of  the  citizens 
of  Neiv  York.  This  was  evidence  that  they  did  count  on  this  long 
futurity  of  domination,  and  therefore  it  was  not  surprising  that  they 
should  cling  with  such  tenacity  to  its  perpetuation. 

Now  it  had  been  his  duty  to  examine  the  books  used  in  these 
schools,  and  whatever  might  be  said  hereafter,  notwithstanding  all 
that  they  had  printed,  or  all  that  they  had  authorized  to  be  printed 
by  the  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen,  that  there  was  nothing  in  their 
books  against  which  the  Catholics  conld  hai  e  any  reasonable  objec¬ 
tion,  he,  in  an  examination  of  the  books  to  ascertain  whether  that 
statement  was  founded  in  truth,  had  found  many  things  against 
Avhich  Catholics  had  reasonable  objections.  But  laying  that  aside, 
Avhile  Catholics  formed  one-fifth  portion  of  the  citizens  Avhose  chil¬ 
dren  were  to  be  taught  in  these  schools,  from  the  first  to  the  last 
their  books  did  not  contain  a  solitary  sentence  upon  Catholic  atlairs, 
nor  one  line  from  Catholic  authors — not  one  sentence,  not  one  essay 
on  morals,  not  one  chapter  of  history,  not  one  section  of  geography, 
not  a  single  line  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  as  if  Catholics  from 
tlie  beginning  of  creation  had  been  men  who  had  not  known  how  to 
wield  the  pen,  or  to  arrange  ideas  in  a  proper  manner.  And  not 
only  was  this  the  fact,  not  only  ivas  there  this  suppression — for  he 
might  call  it  the  suppression  of  the  truth — and  it  was  the  suppression 
of  the  brightest  trait  in  their  character,  which  would  affect  the  mind 
of  their  children,  attach  them  to  the  creed  of  their  fathers,  and  make 
them  not  ashamed  of  a  creed  Avhich  had  produced  some  of  the 
brightest  ornaments  that  CA'er  did  honor  to  human  nature ;  indepen¬ 
dent  of  that  science,  he  had  in  his  hand  a  dialogue  used  in  these 
schools  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  their  children  to  read,  and  to 
practice,  them  in  elocution.  It  Avas  a  dialogue  between  Cortez  the 
conqueror  of  Mexico,  and  William  Penn,  both  founders  of  colonies, 


116 


AECIIBISHOP  HUGHES, 


on  the  use  of  the  sword,  and  the  more  honorable  means  of  defence 
for  the  colonies.  They  discuss  the  principles  on  which  the  colonies 
were  established,  and  then  Cortez  says : 

“  It  is  blasphemy  to  say,  that  any  folly  could  come  from  the  fountain  of  wisdom. 
iUhatever  is  inconsistent  with  the  great  laws  of  nature,  and  with  the  necessary 
state  of  human  society,  cannot  possibly  have  been  inspired  by  God.  Self-defence 
is  as  necessary  to  nations  as  to  men.  And  shall  particulars  have  a  right  which 
nations  have  not?  True  religion,  William  Penn,  is  the  perfection  of  reason.  Fa¬ 
naticism  is  the  disgrace,  the  destruction  of  reason. 

Penn  says,  “  Though  what  thou  sayest  should  be  true,  it  does  not  come  well 
from  thy  mouth.  A  Papist  talk  of  reason  f  Go  to  the  inquisition  and  tell  them 
of  reason  and  the  great  laws  of  nature.  They  will  broil  thee  as  thy  soldiers  broiled 
the  unhappy  Guatimozin  !  Why  dost  thou  turn  pale  ?  Is  it  at  the  name  of  the 
inquisition,  or  the  name  of  Guatimozin?  Tremble  and  shake  when  thou  thinkest, 
that  every  murder  the  inquisitors  have  committed,  every  torture  they  have  inflicted 
on  the  innocent  Indians,  is  originally  owing  to  thee.  Thou  must  answer  to  God  for 
all  their  inhumanity,  for  all  their  injustice.” 

“a1  Papist  talk  of  reason  !”  There  was  a  lesson  for  Catholic  chil¬ 
dren  ;  and  yet  the  School  Trustees,  through  the  Assistant  Aldermen, 
told  them  there  was  really  nothing  in  their  books  against  which 
they  ought  to  have  the  least  objection.  Yes,  they  would  impress  the 
minds  of  their  children  that  Catholics  are  necessarily,  morally,  intel¬ 
lectually,  infallibly,  a  stupid  race.  Now  he  should  like  to  know 
what  reason  they  had  to  give,  in  the  introduction  of  their  writers — 
Robertson,  Hume,  and  others — what  reason  they  could  have,  when 
they  knew  there  were  such  a  multitude  of  Catholic  writers,  to  sup¬ 
press  even  the  least  occasional  mention  of  Catholic  writers.  Was  it 
because  Catholics  had  no  men  who  had  labored  in  the  fields  of  science 
to  improve  the  human  mind  ?  N o w,  though  it  might  be  a  secret 
to  those  gentlemen,  there  was  no  department  of  history  or  philoso¬ 
phy  in  which  the  mind  of  a  Cath.olic  had  not  taken  the.  lead  ;  and 
the  time  was  when  they  found  the  Catholic  arm  the  strongest  in 
pushing  the  Sun  of  Science  up  the  hea\^ens.  Who  had  produced 
works  of  theology  like  theirs  (the  Catholics)  ?  In  philosophy, 
whether  of  mind  or  matter,  where  were  the  books  which  for  depth 
of  research,  or  extent  of  knowledge,  equaled  or  approached  the 
mighty  tomes  ])roduced  by  Catholics  ?  And  at  the  period  when 
•  ancient  civilization  was  destroyed,  when  the  edifice  crumbled  under 
tlie  mighty  stroke  of  the  Goth  and  the  Hun,  and  when  society  was 
dissolved,  they  found  Catholic  minds  presiding  over  its  recon¬ 
struction,  laying  its  foundations  broad  and  deep,  and  doing  every¬ 
thing  calculated  to  improve  the  public  mind.  Who  reduced  a  mass 
of  rude  characters  into  letters  which  we  now  call  our  alphabet? 
Who  but  Catholics  who  thus  gave  a  language  to  Europe  by  establish- 
iig  its  basis.  Nay,  more,  after  that,  who  introduced  that  most  im¬ 
portant  branch  of  civilization,  agriculture  ?  It  was  the  monks,  by 
whose  industry  and  labor  the  reclaimed  wastes  became  the  “  model 
farms”  of  Europe,  and  from  them  agriculture  spread. 

They  heard  much  of  free  government  and  of  Parliaments,  but  was 
that  a  Protestant  invention ?  No,  it  was  a  Catholic  invention;  for 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOJT. 


IIY 

it  was  copied  from  the  Catholic  Church.  The  first  models  of  repre¬ 
sentative  government,  and  of  dignified  and  noble  parliaments,  were 
tlie  councils  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  which  every  part  of  that 
churcli  had  its  representative.  Thence,  then,  the  idea  was  borrowed, 
which  has  been  the  pride  and  boast  of  England  and  of  this  country 
after  her,  of  representative  government.  But  he  might  speak  also 
of  navigation.  Who  discovered  the  continent  on  which  they  now 
lived?  Was  it  not  a  Catholic  ?  Who  made  the  second  voyage  to 
this  continent,  and  stamped  his  name  upon  it?  Was  it  not  a  Cath¬ 
olic  ? — Americas  Yespucius.  Who  made  the  first  voyage  round  tiie 
globe?  Was  it  not  a  Catholic?  And  Catholics  were  the  first  to 
visit  both  the  East  and  the  West  Indies ;  they  traversed  seas  to 
carry  the  knowdedge  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  ignorant,  and  they  then 
became  acquainted  with  tlie  physical  position  of  difterent  countries, 
and  they  conveyed  that  knowledge  to  the  wmrld  either  in  letters  or 
other  documents,  and  added  a  mass  of  human  knowledge  which  had 
assumed  a  gigantic  size  before  Protestantism  first  sprung  out  of  the 
earth.  And  while  things  of  a  less  beneficial  tendency  were  going 
on  in  other  parts  of  the  globe.  Catholic  missionaries,  200  years  ago, 
penetrated  this  country  and  continued  a  chain  round  from  Quebec  to 
the  Mississippi.  While  persecution  was  going  on  in  the  North  and 
the  South,  Avith  Avhich  Catholics  had  nothing  to  do,  their  free  banner 
waved  over  Maryland,  where  the  rights  of  conscience  were  recog¬ 
nized.  They  Avent  to  tlie  Indians,  not  to  destroy  but  to  convert,  to 
save,  and  civilize.  And  if  Ave  turn  our  eyes  from  these  things  to 
others,  Ave  shall  see  those  things  which  are  calculated  to  reflect 
honor  on  those  Avho  effected  their  accomplishment.  When  Ave  see 
the  alleviation  of  the  infirmities  of  human  life,  we  naturally  ask  our¬ 
selves  to  Avhom  the  Avorld  was  indebted  for  the  act  of  mercy.  Who 
planned  the  structures  and  laid  the  foundation  of  those  hospitals  for 
the  afflicted,  and  asylums  for  the  decrepid,  aged,  and  the  young  and 
exposed  infant?  Were  they  not  all  introduced  and  established  by 
the  beneA'olent  spirits  and  the  enlightened  minds  of  the  Catholics  of 
antiquity  ?  Turn  your  minds  to  other  structures,  and  then  ask  Avho 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  universities  ?  Who  originated  the  idea  ? 
Who  aided  their  establishment?  It  was  Catholics  alone;  and  if 
you  blot  out  the  benevolent  institutions  Avith  which  the  earth  is  still 
studded,  for  Avlnch  the  world  is  indebted  to  Catholics,  you  will 
find  but  a  feAV  insignificant  ones  remaining.  If  you  turn  again  from 
these  things  to  the  men  distinguished  by  their  OAvn  intellect — to 
warriors  and  legislators — to  men  distinguished  by  their  eloquence, 
by  their  scientific  attainments,  in  jurisprudence,  or  in  other  stations 
in  public  life,  Avhere  do  you  find  models  Avorthier  of  imitation  than 
those  by  whom  the  pages  of  Catholic  history  are  adorned.  Passing 
again  from  these  to  the  ornaments  of  ancient  literature,  of  classic 
Greece  and  Rome,  and  Avhile  desolation  and  barbarism  passed  over 
Europe  Avith  their  trains  of  evils,  Avho,  by  patient,  persevering  in¬ 
dustry,  gathered  up  the  fragments  of  ancient  literature  to  adorn  the 
human  mind  ?  It  was  done  by  the  labor  of  the  calumniated  monks. 


118 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Yes,  you  may  turn  your  eyes  on  whatever  side  you  please,  and  you 
will  find  that  Catholics  have  nothing  of  which  to  be  ashamed.  You 
will  find  no  reason  for  the  suppression  of  all  these  things  with  which 
Catholics  can  charge  themselves,  but  you  will  find  in  every  depart¬ 
ment,  if  you  take  away  the  volumes  Catholics  have  written,  and  the 
mighty  libraries  they  have  collected,  your  shelves  will  present  a 
barren  appearance.  Why,  we  have  the  testimony  of  eminent  Prot¬ 
estant  scholars  themselves,  attesting  the  fact  that  one  single  order 
alone — the  order  of  Benedictines — did  more  than  all  the  Protestants 
together.  In  every  species  of  knowledge — in  history,  jurisprudence, 
and  canonical  and  civil  law — in  a  word,  in  everything  appertaining 
to  human  knowledge,  it  was  found  that  the  great  predominance 
was  due  to  Catholic  labor  and  Catholic  success ;  and  why  then  did 
they  not  find  one  page  to  adorn  these  school-books  from  authors 
like  these.  Again,  where  are  there  poets  like  Catholic  poets  ? 
Take  from  England  the  works  of  Catholic  writers :  take  away  her 
Chaucer,  and  Spenser,  and  Shakspeare,  and  Dryden,  and  Pope,  and 
you  take  away  the  cream  of  English  literature.  Then,  if  they 
turned  their  minds  from  these  things  to  others  not  so  immediately 
essential  to  the  cultivation,  but  to  the  adornment  of  human  life — 
take  the  study  of  the  mathematics — and  who  was  the  first  to  culti¬ 
vate  that  study  in  the  west  of  Europe  ?  Who  invented  and  arrayed, 
and  introduced  that  science  but  the  Monk  Jerbert,  afterwards  Pope 
Sylvester  IT. ;  the  same  who  introduced  the  first  celestial  globes. 
Then,  again,  in  architecture  and  its  application  to  the  construction 
of  bridges,  which  at  one  period  of  European  history  could  not  be 
constructed  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  some  learned  man  from  a 
distant  country,  who  was  usually  some  humble  monk  who  knew 
how  to  throw  the  daring  arch,  to  span  the  river,  or  to  cross  the  other¬ 
wise  impassable  valley.  Take  away  from  England  even  the  archi¬ 
tectural  structures  left  by  Catholics,  and  what  would  remain  ? — 
scarcely  anything.  Oxford  would  disappear,  and  the  greater  part 
of  Cambridge,  and  nothing  would  be  left  but  St.  Paul’s,  of  which 
Lord  Kingsbury  said,  after  seeing  St.  Peter’s,  it  was  scarcely  fit  for 
anything  but  to  be  blown  up  by  gunpowder.  If  they  turned  from 
these  things  to  inventions,  they  might  ask,  who  invented  the  art  of 
printing  ?  A  Catholic.  Who  originated  that  by  which  information 
was  sent  round  through  every  village  and  hamlet — the  post-office  ? 
A  Catholic.  Who  invented  the  clock  to  tell  what  time  of  day  it  was  ? 
A  Catholic.  Who  invented  the  compass  to  guide  the  mariner  across 
the  trackless  ocean  ?  A  Catholic?  What  is  it  that  Catholics  have 
not  done?  And  if  this  is  the  history  of  this  people,  why  was  it 
that  these  teachers  despised  them  ?  and  why  was  it  that  not  a  line 
from  Catholic  authors  was  permitted  in  their  books?  And  they 
pretended  to  be  all  impartiality  and  to  possess  feelings  of  the  most 
liberal  and  philanthropic  character.  But  turn  away  from  this  again 
to  another  thing.  There  are  atfiictions  resting  on  the  children  of 
sorrow,  some  of  whom  are  deprived  of  sight,  and  the  sunbeam  falls 
to  the  earth  in  vain  for  them.  Now  it  was  a  work  of  benevolence 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


119 


to  discover  eyes  for  these  children  of  sorrow,  and  to  place  them  at 
the  end  of  their  fingers ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  enable  them,  by  run¬ 
ning  their  fingers  over  raised  characters,  to  read  with  rapidity  ;  and 
it  is  to  a  Catholic  that  the  invention  is  to  be  attributed.  Again, 
there  is  another  class,  the  deaf  and  dumb,  who  can  neither  hear  nor 
speak.  Now,  happily  for  them,  there  is  an  invention,  which  ema¬ 
nated  fi’om  a  benevolent  heart,  by  which  they  can  communicate 
thought,  and  for  this  they  are  indebted  to  a  Catholic  jiriest.  The 
language  for  the  deaf  and  dumb  was  the  invention  of  the  Abbe 
Ponza,  a  Benedictine  of  Spain. 

Now  if  these  gentlemen  of  the  Public  Schools  would  place  Catho¬ 
lics  under  a  dark  cloud,  he  saw  no  reason  why  they  should  not 
jienetrate  that  cloud,  and  cause  some  of  the  rays  of  their  former 
glory  to  return  to  them.  It  was  then  again  the  Abbe  L’Eppe,  who 
on  visiting  two  sisters  thus  afflicted,  as  a  man  of  God,  was  himself 
afflicted  that  he  could  not  communicate  to  them  the  Christian  Reli¬ 
gion.  He  began  to  move  by  signs,  and  continued  to  improve  on  his 
attempt,  until  at  length  he  acquired  the  means  of  communicating 
with  the  deaf  and  dumb  with  ease  and  rapidity. 

Who  was  the  founder  of  Sunday-schools  ?  It  was  Saint  Charles 
Borromeo — a  Catholic.  In  a  word,  there  is  no  department  of 
knowledge  in  which  Catholics  have  not  been  distinguished.  But  to 
go  further,  who  discovered  a  quicker  means  of  communication  than 
the  railroad  ?  It  was  hot  used  so  extensively  in  this  country  as  in 
some  others,  but  it  might  be  important  even  here,  if  an  invasion 
should  be  made  of  any  part  of  our  coast,  to  communicate  information 
to  Washington  and  receive  an  answer  back  in  less  time  than  it  could 
be  done  by  railroads.  He  would  deserve  a  prize  who  should  invent 
the  means  of  sending  information  from  Niagara  to  Washington  and 
receiving  an  answer  back  in  six  or  seven  hours.  And  yet  the  equiva¬ 
lent  of  this  had  been  done  by  a  Catholic  priest  who  invented  the 
telegraph.  [Applause.]  If  they  turned  to  music,  who  had  brought 
it  to  its  present  state  by  the  perfection  of  instrumental  music  ? 
Who  had  taught  the  canvas  to  speak  ?  And  who  had  given  life  and 
animation  to  the  cold  marble  ?  Catholics.  And  all  the  boasted 
superiority  of  Protestants  was  yet  an  infinite  distance  from  the  pro¬ 
ductions  of  Catholics,  and  they  were  proud  to  distraction  if  they 
succeeded  in  producing  a  tolerable  copy  of  that  which  Catholics  had 
invented.  [Applause.]  He  had  thus  endeavored  to  claim  for  Ca¬ 
tholics  that  to  which  they  were  confessedly  entitled.  The  gentle¬ 
men  of  the  public  schools  had  not  treated  them  fairly  or  honorably, 
when  they  had  thought  proper  to  fill  their  pages  for  the  instruction 
of  their  children,  from  Hume  and  Robertson,  and  other  Protestant 
writers  who  were  all  opposed  to  the  Catholics,  and  not  given  one 
sentence  from  Catholic  authors.  But  he  would  go  now  to  another 
point.  They  had  said  that  there  was  nothing  in  their  books  to 
which  Catholics  could  object.  Why,  in  the  most  delicate  manner 
[laughter]  they  teach  th.at  the  ceremonies  of  the  Catholic  religion  are 
the  remnants  of  idolatry — so  slyly  and  so  gently  is  it  introduced. 


120 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


[Laughter.]  In  “  Conversations  on  Common  Things,”  which  were 
used  as  reading  lessons  for  their  children,  there  occurred  the  follow¬ 
ing  passages  : 

“  D.  What  is  frankincense  ?  it  was  burned  in  the  Catholic  church  the  day  I  was 
there ;  I  suppose  it  is  a  kind  of  gum  ? 

“  M.  It  is  an  odoriferous  substance,  consisting  of  equal  quantities  of  gummy 
and  resinous  particles ;  it  is  collected  in  a  very  impure  state,  and  refined  after 
importation.  We  have  the  gum  from  Mount  Lebanon  and  Arabia,  also  in  great 
quantities  from  the  western  coast  of  Africa.  It  was  formerly  burnt  in  all  temples 
of  worship,  and  many  Christians  were  put  to  death  by  the  idolatrous  Jews  and  Ro¬ 
mans,  for  refusing  to  burn  it  before  idols.” 

They  would  see  the  connection  which  children,  whether  Catholics 
or  Protestants,  after  reading  this  lesson  would  ever  associate  in  their 
minds.  They  would  never  see  frankincense  without  associating 
therewith  the  putting  to  death  of  Christians  by  “  the  idolatrous  Jews 
and  Romans,  for  refusing  to  burn  it  before  idols.”  But  take  an¬ 
other.  They  had  now,  after  the  assertion  of  these  gentlemen  that 
they  did  not  teach  religion,  the  proclamation  that  Catholics  ought 
not  to  be  allowed  any  portion  of  this  money  because  they  would 
teach  religion.  Now  they  were  told  that  the  teachers  were  not 
allowed  to  give  instruction  in  religion  by  way  of  explanation  of  the 
reading  lessons,  but  they  had  a  sermon  printed  at  the  end  of  the' 
text,  and  svch  a  sermon.  [Laughter.]  The  book  entitled  “  Popular 
Lessons”  contained  a  chapter  on  “  The  Ten  Virgins,”  and  the  niys- 
terous  words  in  that  lesson  were  explained  to  the  children  at  the 
end  of  the  chapter  under  the  title  of  “  explanations.”  The  first 
word  explained  was  the  word  “  parable  ;”  and  this  was  the  explana¬ 
tion,  “  A  parable  is  sometimes  called  a  comparison  ;  it  shows  one 
thing  or  circumstance  to  resemble  some  other.”  [Laughter.]  The 
next  was  the  Avord  “  virgins  ;”  and  Avhat  did  they  suppose  that 
meant  ?  “  unmarried  women,”  according  to  the  Public  Schools. 
[Laughter.]  After  some  other  explanations  they  go  on  to  the  Avord 
“  marriage,”  and  here  is  the  ex])lanation  ; 

“  Marriage, — When  a  man  and  woman  agree  to  live  together  all  their  lives,  and 
to  be  called  Husband  and  Wife,  their  agreement  is  called  marriage.  The  Avife  takes 
her  husband’s  name,  and  goes  to  his  house ;  and  Avhatever  belongs  to  one  of  them 
belongs  to  the  other  also. 

“  When  the  man  takes  the  woman  for  his  wife,  the  ceremony  of  the  occasion  is 
called  a  lucdding.  At  weddings,  the  friends  of  the  couple  to  be  married  often  as¬ 
semble,  and  most  commonly  the  company  are  very  merry  and  happy  together. 
The  marriage  ceremony  is  different  in  different  countries,  and  among  people  of 
different  sects.” 

But  here  was  another,  and  he  confessed  he  considered  it  of  a 
much  more  serious  character.  It  was  a  chapter  introduced  for  the 
instruction  of  their  children  on  “The  Character  of  Christ.”  Noav 
those  gentlemen,  of  all  the  men  he  ever  kneAV,  Avere,  to  his  mind,  the 
most  inconsistent,  and  yet  the  most  complacent  in  their  inconsistency. 
They  Avere  first  told  that  those  gentlemen  did  not  teach  religion  in 
their  schools ;  and  then  again,  oh  yes,  they  said,  we  do,  but  it  is  the 
morality  of  .all  sects — a  kind  of  religion  which  all  agree  in,  so  that 
uobody  is  offended.  [Laughter.]  Now  here  Avas  a  chapter  from 


THE  SCHOOL  QUE8TI0K. 


121 


tlie  Bishop  of  London,  from  which  these  men  would  teach  their 
(Catholic)  children  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  would  read 
a  passage,  and  if  Rosseau  or  Voltaire  would  not  give  a  character 
more  worthy  of  him,  he  did  not  know  what  they  could  write.  It 
was  certainly  all  panegyric,  but  still  it  suppressed  the  true  part  of 
his  character,  while  it  showed  that  he  was  not  a  Philosopher  like 
Socrates,  nor  a  Prophet  like  Mahomet. 

“He  was  not  only  free  from  every  failing,  but  he  possessed  and  practiced  every 
imaginable  virtue.  Towards  his  heavenly  Father  he  expressed  the  most  ardent 
love,  the  most  fervent,  yet  rational  devotion ;  and  displayed  in  his  whole  conduct 
the  most  absolute  resignation  to  his  will,  and  obedience  to  his  commands. 

“  His  manners  were  gentle,  mild,  condescending,  and  gracious ;  his  heart  over¬ 
flowed  with  kindness,  compassion  and  tenderness  to  the  whole  human  race.  The 
great  employment  of  his  life,  was  to  do  good  to  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men.  In 
this  all  his  thoughts,  and  all  his  time  were  constantly  and  almost  incessantly 
occupied. 

“  lie  went  about,  dispensing  his  blessings  to  all  around  him,  in  a  thousand  dif¬ 
ferent  ways ;  healing  diseases,  relieving  infirmities,  correcting  errors,  removing 
prejudices,  promoting  piety,  justice,  charity,  peace,  and  harmony ;  and  crowding 
into  the  nan-ow  compass  of  his.  ministry,  more  acts  of  mercy  and  compassion,  than 
the  longest  life  of  the  most  benevolent  man  upon  eai’th  ever  yet  j^roduced 

“  Over  his  own  passions  he  had  the  most  complete  command  ;  and  though  his 
patience  was  continually  put  to  the  severest  trials,  yet  he  was  never  overcome, 
never  betrayed  into  any  intemperance  or  excess,  in  word  or  deed ;  ‘  never  once 
spake  unadvisedly  with  his  lips.’ 

“  He  endured  the  cruelest  insults  from  his  enemies,  with  the  utmost  composure, 
meekness,  patience,  and  resignation ;  displayed  astonishing  fortitude  under  the 
most  painful  and  ignominous  death ;  and  to  crown  all,  in  the  very  midst  of  his  tor¬ 
ments  on  the  cross,  implored  forgiveness  for  his  murderers,  in  that  divinely  chari¬ 
table  prayer,  ‘  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do.’ 

“  Nor  was  his  %visdom  inferior  to  his  virtues.  The  doctrines  he  taught  were  the 
most  sublime,  and  the  most  important,  that  were  ever  before  delivered  to  mankind ; 
and  evei'y  way  worthy  of  that  God  from  whom  he  professed  to  derive  them,  and 
whose  Son  he  declared  himself  to  be. 

“  Flis  precepts  inculcated  the  purest  and  most  perfect  morality ;  his  discourses 
w’ere  full  of  dignity  and  wisdom,  yet  intelligible  and  clear  ;  his  parables  conveyed 
instruction  in  the  most  pleasing,  familiar,  and  impressive  manner ;  and  his  answers 
to  the  many  insidious  questions  that  were  put  to  him,  showed  uncommon  quickness 
of  conception,  soundness  of  judgment  .and  presence  of  mind ;  completely  baffled  all 
the  artifices  and  malice  of  his  enemies;  and  enabled  him  to  elude  aU  the  snares 
that  were  laid  for  him. 

“  From  this  short  and  imperfect  sketch  of  our  Saviour’s  character,  it  ie  eviden*^ 
that  he  was,  beyond  comparison,  the  wisest  and  the  most  virtuous  person  that  ever 
appeared  in  the  world.” 

“  Ilis  answers  to  the  many  insidious  questions  that  were  put  to 
hims,  showed  uncojnmou  quickness  of  conception! — soundness  of  judg¬ 
ment!  and  presence  of  mindP''  and  so  forth.  Now  he  asked  if  that 
was  not  a  very  liberal  almission  in  favor  of  their  blessed  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  lie  asked  if  a  deist  or  an  atheist  could  be 
found  in  New  York  who  would  not  give  him  the  character  which 
these  gentlemen  would  introduce  to  their  children,  and  which  woirld 
almost  degrade  him  to  the  condition  of  the  Philosophers  of  Greece, 
They  praise  him !  But  it  is  with  language  the  most  insidious.  They 
give  him  credit  for  duding  all  the  snares  of  his  enemies,  but  it  is  as 
though  they  said.  Snares  wmre  laid  for  him  by  his  enemies,  but  he 


122 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


was  too  cnte  for  them.  [Laughter.]  And  yet  tnese  men  pretend 
that  they,  and  they  alone,  ought  to  monopolize  the  direction  of  the 
mind  of  infancy.  They  pretend  that  they  alone  should  take  the  con¬ 
tribution  of  Catholics  for  so  noble  a  purpose  as  that  of  education  ; 
become  the  guardians  and  directors  of  Catholic  children ;  and  that 
they  .alone  are  fitted  to  guard  the  heart,  which  is  of  infinitely  greater 
im])ortance  than  the  welfare  of  the  body. 

These,  then,  were  the  men  who  were  laboring  to  prove  th<at  there 
was  not  any  single  denomination  of  Christi.ans  from  which  a  Board 
could  be  formed  that  was  worthy  to  be  confided  in.  But  he  would 
like  to  know  if  there  was  not  a  Christian  denomination  to  be  found 
from  which  a  Board  could  be  formed  of  equal  respectability  with 
those  gentlemen,  and  he  did  not  wish  to  detract  from  their  character. 
It  was  a  libel  on  the  men  who  were  conscientious  in  other  faiths  to 
intim.ate  that  they  were  less  capable  or  less  honest  than  they  (the 
School  Trustees).  What  reason,  then,  could  be  given  for  the  interpo¬ 
sition  of  these  gentlemen  between  Catholics  and  their  children  ?  for 
claiming  the  right  to  extort  on  the  one  hand  the  expense  of  the  edu¬ 
cation,  and  then  its  administration,  and  in  its  administration  to  dilute 
and  render  it  good  for  nothing?  For  himself,  he  had  no  care  in 
this  matter ;  but  for  the  children  of  Catholics,  as  their  Bishop,  .and 
therefore  their  spiritual  parent  and  protector,  he  had  a  conscientious 
duty  to  disch.arge  in  the  protection  and  vindication  of  their  princi¬ 
ples  and  their  rights.  He  cared  less  for  the  money  th.an  for  their 
rights  and  principles.  [Applause.]  And  what  he  s.aid  for  Catholics 
to-day,  he  would  say  for  the  Lutheran  or  the  Quaker  to-morrow,  if 
they  had  the  same  conscientious  scruples.  There  was  no  law — 
there  could  be  no  law  in  this  country  under  any  pretext,  that  could 
compel  them  to  violate  the  rights  of  conscience,  whereby  the  very 
existence  of  society  itself  in  this  country  depends.  He  repeated, 
as  a  matter  of  nionejq  it  was  not  so  much  a  m.atter  of  iuiport.ance,  as 
it  was  as  a  matter  of  principle ;  and  for  the  Catholics,  he  procLaimed 
it  to  the  world,  that  as  regarded  the  Public  Schools,  there  was  an 
end  of  all  connection  with  them  —  The  UisriON  is  Repealed. 
[Great  applause.]  What,  then,  was  their  future  course  ?  It  was  that 
they  were  obliged  to  do  henceforward  as  they  had  done  heretofore — 
to  educate  their  own  children,  after  paying  into  the  common  treasury 
the  ex})ense  of  doing  so.  They  thereby  saved  their  children’s  prin¬ 
ciples,  and  if  the  gentlemen  of  the  Public  Schools  deemed  it  any 
glory  to  take  the  money  of  the  C.atholics,  poor  as  many  of  them 
were,  and  appropriate  it  to  a  parti.al  system  from  which  the  Catho¬ 
lics  were  excluded,  let  them  enjoy  the  unenvied  glory  of  doing  so ; 
but  a  conquest  over  their  principles  those  gentlemen  would  not 
obt.ain.  [Appljiuse.] 

It  remained,  then,  for  them  (the  C.atholics),  to  unite  in  soul  in  pro- 
I)ortion  to  the  tenacity  of  purpose  with  which  the  School  Society 
cling  to  the  existing  system;  and  to  show  those  gentlemen  with 
wh.at  persever.ance  and  lirmness  they  were  determined  not  to  submit 
to  injuries.  So  far  as  it  depended  on  them  (the  Catholics),  those 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


123 


gentlemen  would  find  no  acquiescence  in  a  system,  which  in  the 
conscience  and  judgment  of  every  impartial  man  could  not  merit 
approbation.  They  (the  Catholics)  had  to  develop  their  position  to 
the  world,  and  to  explain  to  the  community  at  large  the  bearing  of 
this  system  upon  them,  for  there  were  multitudes  that  did  not  com¬ 
prehend  it,  and  who  saw  nothing  in  it  affecting  their  own  religion 
to  induce  them  to  examine  it.  But  when  Catholics  showed  how  it 
pressed  unequally  on  them,  and  on  the  princijiles  of  justice,  on  their 
freedom  of  conscience,  and  on  the  liberty  which  they  ought  to  possess 
to  give  instruction  to  their  own  children,  they  would  find  friends  and 
supporters  among  those  who  had  no  sympathy  with  their  religion. 
He  conceived  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  But  all  he  begged  of  the 
Public  Council  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  was  to  treat  them  with 
candor  and  frankness,  and  at  once  say  yes,  or  no.  This  was  all  they 
expected — as  a  matter  of  favor  to  be  conferred  on  them,  they  did  not 
ask  it,  they  claimed  it  as  a  right  for  which  they  had  many  prece¬ 
dents.  In  Ireland  the  Presbyterians  objected  to  the  system  pursued 
by  the  British  Government,  and  that  government  consulted  those 
objections  to  remove  them ;  and  he  would  say,  glory  to  those  Pres¬ 
byterians  for  stating  their  scruples. 

Again,  look  at  Lowell  in  their  own  country.  The  Catholics  there 
being  unwilling  to  place  their  children  under  a  system  which  they 
conceived  operated  against  their  consciences,  made  known  their  ob¬ 
jections  to  the  superintendents  of  those  schools ;  and  those  superin¬ 
tendents,  on  becoming  acquainted  with  the  facts,  being  themselves 
men  of  education,  without  any  desire  to  encroach  on  the  rights^  or 
to  get  the  shavings  of  the  consciences  of  others — [laughter] — said  to 
the  Catholics,  Establish  your  own  schools,  select  your  own  teachers, 
and  we  will  pay  for  them,  provided  you  give  education,  for  education 
is  what  we  want.  Now,  cannot  these  men  do  that  here,  instead  of 
pursuing  the  course  which  they  have  pursued  hitherto  ?  But  if,  on 
the  contrary,  they  say.  Keep  quiet,  we  know  who  you  are,  we  will 
tell  them  we  are  not  afraid :  the  time  when  Penn  told  Cortez  Catho¬ 
lics  could  not  reason,  has  gone  by ;  and  now  Catholics  can  reason ; 
and  when  they  were  made  to  bear  burdens  which  pressed  more 
heavily  than  was  fair,  and  reasonable,  and  right,  they  would 
tell  those  gentlemen  that  they  would  not  submit  to  it.  [Great 
aiiplause.] 

There  was  one  other  subject  to  which  it  was  his  desire  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  meeting.  It  was  in  reference  to  the  opportunity  to 
be  afforded  them  of  stating  their  grievances  to  the  Board  of  Aider- 
men.  It  had  been  suggested  to  him  by  a  gentleman  very  deeply  in¬ 
terested  in  the  success  of  this  question,  that  it  might  not  be  expedi¬ 
ent  for  him  (the  Bishop)  to  appear  in  such  a  place  on  such  an  occa¬ 
sion,  for  it  was  possible  that  some  language  might  be  used  towards 
him,  which,  though  he  might  bear  it  with  patience,  might  be  painful 
to  others.  On  this  question,  he  had  replied,  he  was  willing  to  give 
up  his  OAvn  opinion,  but  at  the  same  time  he  stated  that  he  had  no 
apjirehension  of  anything  of  that  kind,  or  if  anything  of  the  sort 


124 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


should  occui',  it  would  have  no  effect  on  him  personally,  or  on  his 
feelings.  But  he  had  no  apprehensions  on  the  subject,  either  on 
questions  of  propriety  or  any  other. 

He,  however,  had  considered  whether  he  should  not  there  be  out 
of  place,  and  whether  even  in  meetings  like  the  present  he  was  not ; 
but  so  vital  and  important  did  he  consider  the  question,  that  he  con¬ 
ceived  he  could  not  be  anyw'here  more  in  keeping  with  his  character 
as  a  bishop,  than  when  he  stood  before  them,  pleading  the  cause 
of  the  poor  and  the  oppressed.  [Great  applause.]  And  so  near 
was  the  question  to  his  heart  that  he  could  bear  insult  from  morning 
till  night.  [Renewed  applause.]  Insult  would  have  no  other  effect 
on  him  than  to  make  him  cling  still  closer  to  that  principle  which 
was  to  be  acted  upon  in  a  few  days,  but  the  effect  of  which  was  to 
be  felt  through  years  and  years,  through  ages  and  ages,  through 
generations  and  generations,  till  the  world  shah,  be  no  more. 
[Cheers.]  For  such  a  question  he  might  venture  to  the  farthest 
boundaries  of  propriety — to  the  farthest  limits  which  propriety 
would  allow  a  bishop  to  go.  He  w'as,  however,  willing  to  submit 
his  opinion  to  the  meeting.  He  should  not  consider  himself  out  of 
place  there  ;  and  he  had  nothing  to  dread  on  that  occasion.  [Great 
applause.]  He  then  passed  a  high  eulogium  on  the  character  of 
Mr.  Francis  Cooper,  and  on  his  firmness  in  refusing  to  take  the  oaths 
prescribed  for  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  when  he  conceived 
them  contrary  to  the  right  of  conscience,  and  concluded  by  pro¬ 
posing  the  addition  of  that  gentleman  to  the  committee  deputed  to 
wait  on  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  to  state  the  ground  of  their  claim — 
an  addition  which  he  considered  valuable,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Cooper 
was  familiar  with  the  subject,  having  been  himself  connected  with 
the  Commor.  School  System. 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COTJNCIL. 


125 


BISHOP  HUGHES’  GREAT  SPEECHES 

ON  THE  CLAIM  OF  THE  CATHOLICS  TO  A  PORTION  OF  THE 
COMMON  SCHOOL  FUND,  BEFORE  THE  BOARD  OF  ALDERMEN 
OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK,  ON  THURSDAA^  and  FRIDAY 
THE  29th  and  30th  OCTOBER,  1840. 

On  Thursday,  the  29th  October,  1840,  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  met  in 
S2Jecial  session,  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  the  arguments  of  the  Catholics 
in  favor  of  their  claim  to  a  seijarate  portion  of  the  Common  School  Fund, 
and  the  School  Society,  and  the  Societies  of  the  Methodist  Episcojtal 
Church  in  ojrposition.  The  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen  was  present,  by 
invitation  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  to  hear  the  discussion.  The  deep 
interest  which  was  felt  in  the  question  by  the  community  generally  was 
exhibited  by  the  dense  crowd  which  filled  the  spacious  halls  long  before 
the  doors  of  the  Council  Chamber  were  thrown  ojpen,  and  by  the  anx¬ 
ious  solicitude  which  was  manifested  to  hear  the  debate. 

Some  time  elapsed  before  the  Aldermen  and  the  gentlemen  who  were  to 
take  part  in  the  proceedings  could  obtain  a  passage  through  the  mass  of 
human  beings  that  struggled  for  admission,  even  with  the  aid  of  a  body 
of  jjolice  officers,  and  great  numbers  of  individuals  were  ultimately  unable 
to  gain  admission. 

When  the  Board  became  organized,  and  some  jooints  of  form  had  been 
determined,  it  was  agreed  to  hear  the  parties  in  the  order  in  which  their 
jietitions  or  remonstrances  had  been  received  by  the  Council — viz.,  first 
the  Catholics,  then  the  Public  School  Society,  and  lastly  the  Societies  of 
the  Methodist  Ejriscopal  Church,  which  were  respectively  reiiresented  by 
the  following  Committees  and  Counsel : — The  Catholics,  by  the  Right  Rev. 
Bishoj)  Hughes,  the  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Power,  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  Francis 
Cooper,  Esq.,  Dr.  Hugh  Sweeney,  James  McKeon,  Esq.,  and  James  Kelly, 
Esq. ;  the  School  Society,  by  Theodore  Sedgwick,  Esq.,  and  Hiram 
Ketchum,  Esq. ;  the  Methodist  Ejnscojial  Churches,  by  the  Revs.  Dr. 
Bangs,  Dr.  Bond,  and  George  Peck. 

Before  entering  on  the  discussion,  the  reading  of  the  petition  of  the 
Catholics  and  the  remonstrances  from  the  other  Societies  here  rejiresented, 
was  called  by  the  Alderman  of  the  Sixteenth  Ward,  and  they  were  read 
accordingly  by  Mr.  John  Paulding,  the  Reader  to  the  Board. 


126 


AKCHEISHOP  IltTGHES. 


The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  then  rose  to  address  the  Board  in  behalf  of 
the  Catholics,  and  spoke  as  follows: 

Oentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen^ — Unaccustomed  as  I  am  to  address  a 
l)ody  of  gentlemen  such  as  I  see  here  before  me,  I  may  not  always  be  correct 
in  the  manner  of  my  address :  I  hope,  therefore,  that  any  mistakes  of  mine 
may  be  imputed  by  this  Honorable  Board  to  my  inexperience.  I  would  also, 
on  the  threshold  of  the  subject,  observe,  that  in  no  part  of  the  discussion  on 
this  question,  so  far  as  it  has  gone,  am  I  conscious  of  having  imputed  to  any 
gentleman  who  is  opposed  to  the  claim  in  which  I  have  so  deej)  an  interest, 
any  motive  or  design  of  a  sinister  character.  I  am  sorry,  therefore,  that  the 
Public  School  Society  should  have  been  pleased  to  refer  to  the  language  of  our 
document  as  though  imputation  had  thereby  been  cast  upon  their  motives.  I 
am  sure  if  they  again  review  our  documents  they  will  not  find  one  solitary 
instance  of  any  imputation  dishonorable  to  them  personally  as  gentlemen.  We 
speak  of  their  system  apart  from  themselves ;  and  we  speak  of  it  with  that 
freedom  which  it  is  the  right  of  American  citizens  to  speak  of  the  public  actions 
and  public  proceedings  of  public  men ;  but  again  will  I  repeat,  that  in  no 
instance  to  my  knowledge  has  there  been  imputed  to  those  gentlemen  one 
solitary  motive,  one  single  purpose  unworthy  of  their  high  standing  and  their 
respectable  character.  They  have  alleged,  in  some  of  their  documents,  that  we 
charge  them  with  teaching  infidelity;  but  we  have  not  done  so.  We  charge  it 
as  the  result  of  their  system,  not  that  they  are  actively  engaged  in  teaching 
infidelity  ;  and  not  only  do  we  not  say  this,  but  we  interpose  the  declaration, 
that  we  do  not  believe  such  to  be  their  intention,  but  that  the  system  has  gone 
beyond  their  intention.  Yet,  after  this,  they  ascribe  to  themselves  these  impu¬ 
tations,  and  they  cap  their  salvo  by  saying,  that  even  the  authors  of  the  address 
shrink  from  a  picture  of  their  own  coloring — a  picture  which  they  not  only 
charge  that  we  have  drawn  of  them,  but  also  of  all  other  classes  and  denomi¬ 
nations  of  our  fellow-citizens.  Now,  I  venture  to  repeat,  that  in  no  instance 
have  we  imputed  to  them  motives  which  can  reflect  on  them  as  honorable  men. 
I  make  these  observations  in  the  commencement,  simply  to  show  how  much 
has  been  VTitten  of  the  petitioners  on  assumptions  which  have  no  foundation 
on  any  thing  that  has  been  written  or  said  by  us.  I  know  well  the  Public 
School  Society  is  an  institution  highly  popular  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  but  I 
should  be  sorry  to  suppose  that  those  gentlemen  would  permit  themselves  to 
interpose  that  popularity  between  them  and  the  justice  which  we  contend  for 
w'hen  we  seek  that  to  which  we  believe  we  have  a  legal  right.  At  the  same 
time  it  is  proper  for  me,  at  the  commencement,  to  clear  away  another  objection 
which  an  attempt  has  been  made,  in  both  the  remonstrances  that  have  been 
read,  to  oppose  to  the  exceedingly  simple  principle  for  which  we  contend. 
The  attempt  has  been  made,  (and  you  will  perceive  the  whole  document,  which 
issued  as  a  Report  from  the  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen,  as  well  as  the 
remonstrances  of  the  Public  School  Society,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  is  based  on  the  same  false  assumption,)  to  assume  false  premises  in 
this  matter,  which  are,  that  we  want  this  money  for  the  promotion  of  the 
ecclesiastical  interests  of  our  Church.  Now,  if  these  Societies  vdsh  to  enter 
their  remonstrances  against  our  petition  they  should  first  read  the  language  in 
which  we  have  urged  our  claim,  and  if  they  had,  the}'  would  have  saved 
themselves  the  trouble,  in  my  opinion,  of  reasoning  on  arguments  which  are  but 
figments  of  their  own  creation  and  no  proposition  of  ours.  Have  not  we  distinctly 
stated  not  only  what  we  want,  but,  to  guard  them  against  accusing  us  of  what 
we  do  not  want,  have  w'e  not  said  that  we  do  not  want  the  public  money  to 
promote  ecclesiastical  interests  ?  for  to  this  money,  for  such  a  purpose,  we  have 
no  right.  And,  also,  have  we  not  further  stated,  that  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
we  want  the  money  for  tliis  purpose,  that  we  will  abandon  our  claim — that  if 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


127 


it  can  be  shown  that  we  want  it  for  sectarian  interest  we  will  relinquish  it 
altogether  ?  We  have  said  in  the  first  place : 

“Your  petitioners  will  now  invite  the  attention  of  jonr  honorable  body  to  the  objections 
and  misrepresentations  that  have  been  urged  by  the  Public  School  Society  to  granting 
the  claim  of  your  petitioners.  It  is  urged  by  them  that  it  would  be  appropriating 
money  raised  by  general  taxation  to  the  support  of  the  Catholic  religion.  Your 
petitioners  join  issue  with  them,  and  declare  unhesitatingly,  that  if  this  objection  can 
be  established  the  claim  shall  forthwith  be  abandoned.  It  is  objected  that  though  v.'e 
are  taxed  as  citizens,  we  apply  for  the  benefits  of  education  as  ‘  Catholics.’  Your 
petitioners,  to  remove  this  difficulty,  beg  to  be  considered  in  their  application  in  the 
identical  capacity  in  which  they  are  taxed,  viz. :  as  citizens  of  the  commonwealth. 
It  has  been  contended  by  the  Public  School  Society,  that  the  law  disqualifies 
schools  which  admit  any  profession  of  religion  from  receiving  any  encouragemenis 
from  the  school  fund.  Your  petitioners  have  two  solutions  for  this  pretended  difficulty. 
First.  Your  petitioners  are  unable  to  discover  any  such  disqualification  in  law, 
which  merely  delegates  to  your  honorable  body  the  authority  and  discretion  of 
determining  what  schools  or  societies  shall  be  entitled  to  its  bounty.  Secondly.  Your 
petitioners  are  willing  to  fulfill  the  conditions  of  the  law  so  far  as  religious  teaching  is 
proscribed  during  school  hours.  In  fine,  your  petitioners,  to  remove  all  objections,  are 
williug  that  the  material  organization  of  their  schools,  and  the  disbursements  of  the 
funds  allowed  for  them,  shall  be  conducted  and  made,  by  persons  unconnected  with 
the  religion  of  your  petitioners,  even  the  Public  School  Society,  if  it  should  please  your 
honorable  body  to  appoint  them  for  that  purpose.  The  public  may  then  be  assured 
that  the  money  will  not  be  applied  to  the  support  of  the  Catholic  religion. 

“  It  is  deemed  necessary  by  your  petitioners  to  save  the  Public  .School  Society  the 
necessity  of  future  misconception,  thus  to  state  the  things  which  are  not  petitioned 
for.” 

Yet,  notwithstanding  this  clear  and  simple  language,  you  perceive  both  the 
remonstrances,  of  the  School  Society  and  the  Episcopal  Methodists,  go  on  this 
false  issue,  that  we  want  this  money  for  sectarian  and  illegal  purposes !  Our 
language  could  not  be  plainer  than  it  was  on  this  point,  and  yet  there  has  been 
uncharitableness  enough  in  these  societies  to  assert  the  contrary.  I  have 
deemed  it  necessary  to  make  this  explanation  at  the  commencement  to  impress 
your  minds,  gentlemen,  with  what  it  is  we  seek  and  what  it  is  we  seek  not, 
because  I  know  a  deal  may  be  done  towards  a  proper  elucidation  of  this  subject 
by  preserving  its  simplicity.  The  remonstrants  warn  you,  gentlemen,  against 
giving  money  for  sectai’ian  purposes.  We  join  them  in  that  admonition.  We 
contend  that  we  look  in  honesty  and  simplicity  alone  for  the  benefits  of  educa¬ 
tion  ;  and  as  members  of  the  commonwealth  and  as  Catholics  we  seek  but  that 
which  we  believe  to  be  just,  and  legal,  and  right. 

I  shall  now,  gentlemen,  review  very  briefly  both  the  documents,  because  they 
submit  to  your  Honorable  Body  the  grounds  on  which  that  claim,  which  we 
believe  to  be  just,  is  opposed.  After  the  introduction  of  that  from  the  Public 
School  Society,  we  find  in  the  second  paragraph  the  following  passages : 

“  The  subject  has,  however,  been  so  fully  elucidated  and  ably  argued,  in  documents 
now  among  the  public  records,  that  your  remonstrants  cannot  liope  to  shed  any 
additional  light  upon  it.  They  therefore  beg  leave  to  refer  your  honorable  body  to 
Document  No.  80,  of  the  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen,  as  containing  the  reasons  on 
which  your  remonstrants  would  rely,  in  opposing  the  applications  of  religious  societies 
for  a  portion  of  the  school  fund.  It  is  believed  that  no  decision  of  the  City  Government 
ever  met  with  a  more  general  and  cordial  response  in  the  public  mind,” 

Yes,  it  may  well  be  so  believed,  for  the  reason  that  that  whole  document  went 
on  a  false  issue,  and  therefore  it  was  thus  believed. '  But  if  I  prove,  as  I  shall, 
that  the  premises  had  no  foundation  in  reality,  then  the  arguments  founded 
thereon  must  fall  to  the  ground,  for  they  were  but  castles  in  the  air.  It 
proceeds : 

“  As  the  Roman  Catholics  very  recent!}^  issued  an  address  to  the  people  of  this  City 
and  State,  urging  at  large  their  reasons  for  a  separate  appropriation  of  school  money, 
to  which  your  remonstrants  have  replied,  they  now  present  copies  of  said  documents, 
which  they  respectfully  submit  to  your  honorable  body,  as  containing  matter  relevant 
to  the  question  under  consideration.  The  petition  of  the  Roman  Catholics  now  pending 
presents,  nevertheless,  some  points  which  your  remonstrants  feel  called  upon  to  notice. 


128 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


By  a  misapprehension  of  the  law  in  relation  to  persons  who  are  conscientiously  opposed 
to  bearing  arms,  which  is  applicable  to  persons  of  every  religious  persuasion,  they 
attempt  to  adduce  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  prayer  of  their  petition,  and  say  that 
they  only  claim  the  benefit  of  the  same  principle  in  regard  to  the  education  of  theii 
children.  Now  the  facts  are,  that  the  law  imposes  a  fine,  or  tax  as  an  equivalent  for 
personal  military  services,  and  in  the  event  of  there  being  no  property  on  which  to 
levy,  subjects  such  persons  to  imprisonment,  and  numbers  are  every  year  actually 
confined  in  the  jails  of  this  State.” 

Now  I  conceive  the  illustration  there  referred  to  was  a  strong  one.  The 
parents  and  guardians  of  tender  offspring  have  a  right  connected  with  their 
nature  by  God  himself  in  His  wise  Providence,  and  they  should  be  shown  a 
strong  reason  for  transferring  it  to  others.  And  I  adduced  it  as  an  illustration 
and  as  a  strong  one — why?  Because  the  defence  of  the  country  is  a  thing 
connected  with  self-existence  and  preservation ;  and  yet,  so  tender  is  the  genius 
of  this  happy  country  of  the  rights  of  conscience,  it  dispensed  with  all  those 
who  had  religious  scruples  from  a  compliance  with  the  law,  and  changed  it 
into  a  small  tine,  whereby  the  right  was  shown,  and  also  the  disposition  to 
waive  it. 

“  Vfith  the  religions  opinions  of  the  denomination  of  Christians  referred  to,  your 
remonstrants  have  nothing  to  do.  In  opposing  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  and 
several  other  churches,  to  the  school  money,  they  have  confined  their  remarks  to  broad 
general  grounds  alike  applicable  to  all;  but  the  petitioners  have  seen  fit  to  single  out 
a  religious  society  by  name,  and  intimate  or  indirectly  assert,  not  only  that  their  pecu¬ 
liar  religious  views  lead  to  insubordination  and  contempt  of  parental  authority,  but 
that  the  Trustees  of  the  Public  Schools,  who  are  of  this  denomination,  by  their  numbers 
or  the  ‘  controlling  influence’  they  exert,  have  introduced  the  ‘  same  principle’  into  the 
public  schools,  and  that  their  effects  are  manifested  in  the  conduct  of  the  Catholic 
children  who  have  attended  them.” 

Now  I  am  exceedingly  surprised  that  those  gentlemen  should  go  so  far  from 
the  text  to  draw  reproach  upon  themselves.  We  said  nothing  to  authorize 
this  language.  We  simply  stated  the  fact;  we  mentioned  the  circumstance  of 
the  controlling  influence  of  those  holding  peculiar  sectarian  views ;  but  we  did 
not  draw  the  conclusion,  whether  the  insubordination  of  the  children  of  our 
poor  people  was  the  result  of  the  principles  taught  in  the  schools  or  of  a  want 
of  domestic  influence.  And  yet  these  gentlemen  have  gone  on  to  draw  upon 
themselves  an  imputation  of  which  we  respectfully  disclaim  the  authorship. 
They  proceed : 

“  Your  remonstrants  feel  bound,  therefore,  in  reply,  to  state  that  of  the  oue  hundred 
citizens  who  compose  the  board  of  trustees,  there  are  only  twelve  of  the  denomination 

thus  traduced^ - “  and  of  these  six  or  seven  accepted  the  situation  by  solicitation  of 

the  board,  for  the  purpose  of  superintending  the  management  of  the  colored  schools,  to 
which  object  they  have  almost  exclusively  confined  themselves.” 

Now  I  should  be  one  of  the  last  to  detract  fi'om  the  merits  of  this  denomi¬ 
nation.  Some  of  them  I  have  known  personally,  and  others  by  their  history, 
and  my  opinion  has  always  been  of  them  that  they  are  among  the  foremost 
in  every  benevolent  act  and  social  virtue,  and  to  lend  their  arm  to  strengthen 
the  weak  and  the  oppressed ;  and  therefore  it  is  no  reproach  to  them  that  they 
take  the  lead  in  this  work  of  benevolence  of  which  I  give  them  credit.  They 
go  on  to  say : 

“  Of  the  motive  that  induced  this  extraordinary  portion  of  the  petition,  your  remon¬ 
strants  will  not  trust  themselves  to  speak,” - 

It  miglit  be  recollected,  gentlemen,  if  there  were  a  leaning  that  way,  it 
was  after  the  publication  of  the  “Reply”  to  our  “Address,”  which,  though 
it  has  the  name,  is  no  reply  to  our  arguments.  It  is  not  an  answer ;  but  in 
it  they  take  the  occasion  to  sneer  at  us,  as  1  shall  soon  have  occasion  to 
show;  yet  I  may  here  observe,  that  it  would  have  been  better  if  they  had 
addi'essed  themselves  to  the  principles  of  eternal  justice  on  which  we  rest. 

“  Of  so  much  of  it,”  they  add,  “  as  convevs  an  idea  that  the  Trustees  who  are  of  this 
religious  persuasion  introduced,  or  attempt  to  introduce,  into  the  public  schools  their 


SPEECH  BEFOEE  THE  CITT  COUIfCIL. 


129 


own  peculiar  opinions,”  we  never  charged  that  they  did;  “they  can  only  say  that  no 
one  of  the  numerous  and  serious  charges  brought  against  your  remonstrants  by  the 
petitioners,  is  more  entirely  destitute  of  foundation  in  fact.  If  a  disposition  existed  in 
any  quarter  to  give  a  sectarian  bias  to  the  minds  of  the  children,  it  will  readily  be  seen 
that  the  most  successful  method  would  be  through  the  selection  of  teachers.” 

Why,  there  was  no  necessity  for  this  vindication  at  all. 

“  In  one  of  the  documents  now  submitted  to  your  Honorable  Body,  it  is  stated  that,  in 
appointing  teachers,  no  regard  is  had  by  the  Trustees  to  the  religious  profession  of  the 
candidates,  and  that  six  or  seven  of  the  present  number  are  Roman  Catholics.” 

I  have  seen  tliis  statement  figure  in  almost  every  document  of  that  Society, 
and  yet  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  “six  or  seven  of  the  present  number 
who  are  Eoman  Catholics and  I  doubt  if  they  can  be  found,  except  they 
are  such  Eoman  Catholics  as  we  see  our  children  become  after  they  have 
been  in  these  public  schools  ;  that  is.  Catholics  who  have  no  feelings  in  com¬ 
mon  with  their  church — Catholics  who  are  ashamed  of  the  name,  because  in 
the  school-books  and  from  the  teachers  they  hear  of  its  professors  only  as 
“  Papists,”  and  of  the  religion  itself  only  as  “  Popery.”  It  is  such  as  these,  I 
fear,  that  pass  as  Catholics,  though  I  only  know  of  one  who  is  worthy  of  the 
name,  “From  an  inquiry  now  made,  it  is  found  that  only  two  of  the  teach¬ 
ers  belong  to  the  ‘  Society  of  Friends.’  ”  And  I  don’t  suppose  that  better 
teachers  could  be  obtained  anywhere,  when  confined  within  the  limits  pre¬ 
scribed  ;  except  they  have  the  privilege  to  introduce  religious  instruction. 
And  without  that  it  matters  but  little  whether  they  are  of  the  Society  of 
Friends  or  not.  They  continue  : 

“  It  is  with  regret  that  your  remonstrants  find  themselves  under  the  painful  neces¬ 
sity  of  saying  that  the  petition  of  the  Catholics  contains  garbled  extracts  and  detached 
portions  of  some  parts  of  their  annual  reports  in  relation  to  religious  instruction,  and 
so  arranged  and  commented  upon  as  to  convey  a  meaning  directly  opposite  to4he  one 
intended  and  clearly  expressed  in  the  original  documents.” 

Now,  I  will  allow  the  reading  of  it,  and  if  there  are  any  garbled  extracts 
there,  I  will  be  the  first  to  correct  it.  But  Fam  surprised,  when  we  quote 
the  words  of  their  documents,  that  they  should  urge  this  charge.  Let  the 
documents  be  read.  I  have  no  dread  on  this  subject. 

“  The  same  means  are  resorted  to  in  quoting  the  language  of  the  Trustees,  when 
urging  the  importance  of  using  measures  for  inducing  the  poor  to  have  their  children 
educated.  On  different  occasions,  your  remonstrants  have  suggested  to  the  Common 
Council  the  expediency  of  requiring,  by  legal  enactment,  the  attendance  at  some  ‘  public 
or  other  daily  school’  of  the  numerous  ‘  vagrant  children  who  roam  about  our  streets 
and  wharves,  begging  and  pilfering;’  and  this  is  tortured  in  the  Catholic  petition  into 
a  desire  of  ‘  abridging  the  private  liberties  of  their  fellow-citizens,’  and  an  acknowledg¬ 
ment,  on  the  part  of  the  Trustees,  ‘  that  they  had  not  the  confidence  of  the  poor.’  ” 

Yet  I  should  think,  gentlemen,  such  a  reluctance  to  attend  their  schools  as 
to  make  it  necessary  to  apply  for  a  legal  enactment  to  procure  first  the 
money  and  then  to  compel  an  attendance,  would  show  that  they  did  want 
that  confidence.  I  know  they  have  not  the  confidence  of  our  body.  Yes, 
they  have  obtained  two  enactments  from  the  Common  Council,  depriving 
tlie  parents  in  time  of  need — even  when  cold  and  starvation  have  set  in  upon 
them — of  public  relief,  unless  the  children  were  sent  to  these,  or  some  other 
schools.  And  I  have  seen  them  urging  ladies,  in  their  public  documents,  to 
obtain  their  confidence  by  soothing  words;  and  I  have  seen  them  urging 
employers  to  make  it  the  condition  of  employment.  Yet,  after  all  this,  they 
pretend  that  they  have  had  the  confidence  of  the  poor.  I  do  not  say  that 
they  have  notmerited  it  according  to  their  views:  but  I  do  not  think  they 
should  expect  all  mankind  to  submit  to  their  views  of  the  matter,  to  the 
saci’ifice  of  their  own.  They  say : 

“  The  records  of  the  schools  will  demonstrate  that  the  industrious  and  respectable 
portions  of  the  laboring  classes  repose  entire  confidence  in  the  public  school  system 
and  its  managers.” 

9 


130 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Then  that  portion  in  behatf  of  whom  I  stand  here  is  not  to  be  classed 
with  the  “  industrious  and  respectable !”  They  then  proceed  to  another 
point ; 

“  The  subject  of  objectionable  matter  in  the  books  nsed  in  the  public  schools  is  so 
fully  discussed  in  the  paj)ers  now  submitted  to  your  honorable  body,  that  little  more 
would  seem  to  be  called  for  under  this  head.  Finding  their  strenuous  and  long-con¬ 
tinued  eti'oi  ts  to  induce  the  Catholic  clergy  to  unite  in  an  expurgation  of  the  books  un¬ 
availing,  the  trustees  commenced  the  work  without  them,  and  it  is  now  nearly  com¬ 
pleted.  If  anything  remains  to  which  the  petitioners  can  take  exception,  no  censure 
can,  bj^  possibility,  attach  to  your  remonstrants  ;  and  the  trustees  assert  with  confi¬ 
dence,  that  if  any  has  escaped  them,  there  is  now  less  matter  objectionable  to  the 
Roman  Catholics,  to  be  found  in  the  books  used  in  the  public  schools,  than  in  those  of 
any  other  seminary  of  learning,  either  public  or  private,  within  this  State.” 

Now  they  could  not  adopt  a  worse  test,  for  I  defy  you  to  find  a  reading 
book  in  either  public  or  iirivate  seminary,  that  in  respect  to  Catholics  is 
not  full  of  ignorance.  Not  a  book.  For  if  it  were  clear  of  this  it  would 
not  be  popular;  and  if  they  refer  to  this,  then  they  refer  to  a  standard 
which  we  repudiate.  But  it  must  be  remembered  those  people  can  send 
their  children  to  those  schools  or  keep  them  at  home.  They  are  not  taxed 
for  their  support.  But  here  we  are  ;  it  is  the  public  money  which  is  here 
used  to  preserve  the  black  blots  which  have  been  attempted  to  be  fixed  on  the 
Catholic  name.  They  say  again,  (and  it  is  an  idea  that  will  go  exceedingly 
well  wdth  the  public  at  large,  for  it  will  show  how  amiable  and  conciliating 
are  these  gentlemen) — that  they  have  submitted  the  books  to  us  as  though 
we  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  mark  out  a  passage  and  it  will  disappear. 
But  are  we  to  take  the  odium  of  erasing  passages  which  they  hold  to  be 
true  ?  Have  they  the  right  to  make  such  an  offer  ?  And  if  we  spend  the 
necessary  time  in  reviewing  the  books  to  discover  passages  to  be  expurgated, 
have  they  given  us  a  pledge  that  they  will  do  it,  or  that  they  will  not  even 
then  keep  them  in  ?  Have  they  given  us  a  pledge  that  they  will  do  it  as  far  as 
their  denomination  is  concerned  ?  And  then,  after  all  the  loss  of  time  which 
it  would  require  to  review  these  books,  they  can  either  remove  the  objec¬ 
tionable  passages,  or  jireserve  them  as  they  see  fit.  An  individual  cannot 
answer  for  a  whole  body.  They  may  make  a  fine  offer  which  may  be  cal¬ 
culated  to  impose  on  the  public,  but  if  we  put  the  question  if  they  are  able 
and  if  they  are  willing,  I  should  like  to  know  whether  they  can,  and  will, 
pass  a  law  to  show  us  that  they  are  sincere  and  that  the  object  can  be  car¬ 
ried  out  ?  That  would  alter  the  case ;  or  we  may  correct  one  passage 
to-day,  and  another  next  week ;  and  then  another  body  may  come  into 
power,  and  we  may  have  to  petition  again  and  again.  Could  they  then  do 
it  if  they  would  ?  And  should  they  if  they  could  ?  They  add  : 

“In  conclusion,  yonr  remonstrants  would  remark  that  they  have  not  thought  it  ex¬ 
pedient,  on  this  occasion,  to  enter  into  a  detailed  defence  of  their  conduct,  as  regards 
all  of  the  charges  preferred  by  the  Roman  Catholics.  Those  cliai’ges  are  before  your 
honorable  body,  and  the  trustees  will  cheerfully  submit  to  any  inquiry  that  you  may 
see  fit  to  institute  in  relation  to  them  ;  and  even  if  it  can  be  shown  that  your  remon¬ 
strants  are  as  ‘  eminently  incompetent  to  the  superintendence  of  public  education  ’  as 
the  petition  of  the  Roman  Catholics  intimates,  it  would  not,  they  respectfully  suggest, 
furnish  any  apology  for  breaking  down  one  of  the  most  important  bulwarks  of  the  civil 
and  religious  liberties  of  the  American  people.” 

This  much  then  as  regards  this  document,  which  it  will  be  perceived 
goes  on  a  false  assumption  that  we  want  this  money  for  a  sectarian  pur¬ 
pose,  because  it  was  so  referi'ed  to  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen,  which  denied  our  claim ;  for  when  I  come  to 
that  it  will  be  found  that  every  projiosition  in  it  goes  on  the  assumption 
that  we  wish  this  money  for  religious  purposes.  If  we  did,  it  would  be  just 
to  deny  it  to  us.  But  I  will  now  take  up  another  document,  and  I  regiet 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


lyi 


that  I  cannot  treat  it  with  the  respect  I  would  otherwise  wish  to  do.  Tlie 
document  from  the  Public  School  Society,  however  it  might  have  been 
led  aside,  and  however  feeble  in  its  reasoning,  contained  nothing,  I  trust  and 
believe,  which  was  intended  to  be  disrespectful  to  us.  It  was  couched  in 
language  at  which  I  cannot  take  offence  ;  though  it  was  weak  in  its  prin¬ 
ciples,  its  reasoning  was  decent.  I  cannot  say  as  much  for  this  wliich  is 
from  “  The  undersigned  committee,  appointed  by  the  pastors  of  the  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city.”  They  commence  by  observing, 
“  That  they  have  heard  with  surijrise  and  alarm  ” — they  should  have  seen 
our  petition  instead  of  taking  “  hearsay  ”  for  their  authority — “  that  the 
Roman  Catholics  have  renewed  their  application  to  the  Common  Council 
for  an  appropriation  from  the  Common  School  Fund,  for  the  support  of 
the  schools  under  their  own  direction,  in  which  they  teach,  and  propose 
still  to  teach,  their  own  sectarian  dogmas.” 

Where  did  they  find  that  ?  Where  did  they  find  that  statement  ?  I 
should  like  to  know  from  the  gentlemen  Avho  signed  this  remonstrance 
where  they  have  their  authority  for  such  an  assertion  ?  We  disclaim  it  in 
the  petition  against  which  they  remonstrate.  It  shows  then  how  much 
trust  can  be  placed  in  “hearsay,”  when  they  should  and  might  have  exam¬ 
ined  the  petition  against  which  they  remonstrate,  in  which  they  can  find 
no  such  thing. 

“In  which  they  te.ach,  and  propose  still  to  teach,  their  own  sectarian  dogmas  :  not 
only  to  their  own  children,  but  to  such  Protestant  children  as  they  may  find  means  to 
get'into  these  schools.” 

I  ask  these  gentlemen  again  what  authority  they  have  for  such  an  asser¬ 
tion  ?  I  should  like  to  see  the  argument  which  gives  them  their  authority 
to  use  language  and  to  make  a  statement  so  palpably  fiilse  as  this  is. 

“  Your  memorialists  had  hoped  that  the  clear,  cogent,  and  unanswerable  arguments, 
by  which  the  former  application  for  this  purpose  was  resisted,  would  have  saved  the 
Common  Council  from  further  importunity.” 

We  shall  see  whether  the  arguments  were  so  clear,  cogent,  and  unan¬ 
swerable  by  and  by. 

“  It  was  clearly  shown,  that  the  Council  could  not  legally  make  any  sectarian  appro¬ 
priation  of  the  public  funds;  and  it  was  clearly  shown  that  it  would  be  utterly  destruc¬ 
tive  of  the  whole  scheme  of  public  school  instruction  to  do  so,  even  if  it  could  be 
legally  done.  But  it  seems  that  neither  the  constitution  of  the  State,  nor  the  public 
welfare  are  to  be  regarded,  when  they  stand  in  the  way  of  Romon  Catholic  sectarian¬ 
ism  and  exclusiveness.” 

There  is  an  inference  for  you ;  and  a  very  unfounded  one  it  is  too.  “  It 
must  be  manifest  to  the  Common  Council,  that  if  the  Roman  Catholic 
claims  are  granted,  all  the  other  Christian  denominations  will  urge  tlieir 
claims  for  a  similar  appropriation  ” — And  I  say  they  have  the  riglit  to  do 
it,  I  wish  they  would  do  it,  for  I  believe  it  would  be  better  for  the  future 
character  of  the  city,  and  for  its  fame,  when  this  generation  shall  have 
passed  away.  If  they  did  claim  it  and  the  claim  was  granted,  then  an 

eftbrt  would  be  made  to  raise  good  and  pious  and  honest  men.  . - 

“  and  that  the  money  raised  for  education  by  a  general  tax,  will  be  solely 
applied  to  the  purposes  of  proselytism,  through  the  medium  of  sectarian 
schools.  But  if  this  were  done,  wouYdit  be  the  price  of  peace?  or  would 
it  not  throw  the  apple  of  discord  into  the  whole  Christian  community  ? 
Should  we  agree  in  the  division  of  the  spoils  ?” 

I  am  exceedingly  sorry  that  the  gentlemen  who  drew  up  the  remon¬ 
strance  had  not  more  confidence  in  the  power  of'their  own  religious  princi¬ 
ple  than  to  suppose  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  contend  violently  for 
what  they  call  the  “  spoils.”  We  have  submitted  to  be  deprived  of  them  for 


132 


AErjHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


years,  and  we  have  not  manifested  such  a  disposition  ;  and  I  am  surprised 
that  they  who  understand  so  much  of  the  power  of  religion  should  attach 
so  much  value  to  the  little  money  which  is  to  he  distributed  as  to  suppose 
that  it  would  set  Christians — professing  Christians — together  by  the  ears  in 
its  distribution. 

“  Should  we  agree  in  the  division  of  the  spoils?  Would  each  sect  be  satisfied  with 
the  portion  allotted  to  it?  We  venture  to  say,  that  the  sturdy  claimants  who  now  beset 
the  Council,  would  not  be  satisfied  with  much  less  than  the  lion’s  share;  and  we  are 
sure  that  there  are  other  Protestant  denominations,  besides  ourselves,  who  would  not 
patiently  submit  to  the  exaction.” 

After  what  they  have  said  by  authority  as  the  grounds  of  their  opposi¬ 
tion,  where,  instead  they  should  have  had  history  for  their  guide,  I  am  not 
surprised  that  they  should  prophesy  in  the  matter.  I,  too,  may  prophesy 
and  I  will  say  that  the  “  sturdy  claimants  ”  are  as  respectable  as  they  are, 
and  I  trust  it  will  never  be  attributable  to  us  that  we  claim  more  than  ia 
our  common  right,  and  if  that  should  be  violated  with  respect  to  the  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  denomination,  we  shall  be  far  from  the  ranks  of  those  who 
may  be  the  violators. 

“  But  when  all  the  Christian  sects  shall  be  satisfied  with  their  individual  share  of  the 
public  fund,  what  is  to  become  of  those  children  whose  parents  belong  to  none  of  these 
sects,  and  who  cannot  conscientiously  allow  them  to  be  educated  in  the  peculiar  dogmas 
of  any  one  of  them  ?  The  different  committees  who  on  a  former  occasion  approached 
your  honorable  body,  have  shown,  that  to  provide  schools  for  these  only  wmuld  require 
little  less  than  is  now  expended;  and  it  requires  little  arithmetic  to  show  that  when  the 
religious  sects  have  taken  all,  nothing  will  remain  for  those  who  have  not  yet  been  able 
to  decide  which  of  the  Christian  denominations  to  prefer.  It  must  be  plain  to  every 
impartial  observer  that  the  applicants  are  opposed  to  the  whole  system  of  public  school 
instruction.” 

Have  we  said  so  ?  And  on  what  authority  have  these  gentlemen  the  right 
to  say  it  if  we  have  not  ?  Where  are  their  data  ?  And  yet  they  come  before 
this  Honorable  Body  and  make  such  assertions  with  the  sanction  of  their  whole 
church ! 

“  And  it  will  be  found  that  the  uncharitable  exclusiveness  of  their  creed  must  ever  be 
opposed  to  all  public  instruction  which  is  not  under  the  direction  of  their  own  priest¬ 
hood.  They  may  be  conscientious  in  all  this  ;  but  though  it  be  no  new  claim  on  their 
part,  we  cannot  yet  allow  them  to  guide  and  control  the  consciences  of  all  the  rest  of  the 
community.” 

Why,  it  would  be  a  silly  and  absurd  thing  on  our  part  to  look  for  it.  But 
we  never  thought  of  it.  It  is  a  fiction  of  these  gentlemen’s  own  creation.  I 
contend  we  ask  nothing  for  the  community  but  for  ourselves,  and  I  trust  it  will 
be  granted  if  it  is  right,  and  if  we  can  be  shown  that  it  is  not  right  we  will 
abandon  it  cheerfully.  But  their  assertion  is  wholly  destitute  of  foundation. 

“  We  are  sorry  that  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  public  schools,  without  note  or 
commentary,  is  offensive  to  them  ;  but  we  cannot  allow  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  ac¬ 
companied  with  ihev)‘  notes  and  commentaries  ” — Have  we  asked  such  a  thing?  or  in  any 
way  solicited  it? — “  and  to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  children,  who  may  hereafter  be  the 
rulers  and  legislators  of  our  beloved  country ;  because  among  other  bad  things  taught 
in  these  commentaries  is  to  be  found  the  lawfulness  of  murdering  heretics ;  and  the  un¬ 
qualified  submission,  in  all  matters  of  conscience,  to  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church.” 

I  have  a  feeling  of  respect  for  many  of  their  denomination,  but  not  for  the 
head  or  the  heart  of  those  who  drew  this  document  up.  Here  it  states  an  un¬ 
qualified  falsehood.  Here  it  puts  forth  a  false  proposition,  and  that  proposition 
has  been  introduced  here  as  a  slander.  I  can  prove  that  it  is  so.  And  depend¬ 
ing  on  the  confidence  here  reposed  in  me,  I  propose  and  pledge  myself  to  for¬ 
feit  a  thousand  dollars,  to  be  appropriated  in  charities  as  this  council  may 
direct,  if  those  gentlemen  can  prove  the  truth  of  this  allegation ;  provided  they 
agree  to  the  same  forfeiture  to  be  appropriated  in  a  similar  marner,  if  they  fail 


SPEECH  BEFOEE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


133 


to  establish  its  truth.  If  they  can  prove  that  the  Catholic  Church  sanctions, 
or  has  made  it  lawful  to  murder  heretics,  I  will  forfeit  that  sum.  I  feel  in¬ 
dignant  that  we  should  be  met,  w'hen  we  come  with  a  plain,  and  reasonable,  and 
honest  request  to  submit  to  the  proper  authorities,  with  slanders  such  as  that, 
and  that  in  the  name  of  religion,  which  is  holy.  I  wish  them  to  hear  what  I 
say.  I  know  very  well  their  books  tell  them  so ;  but  they  should  look  at  the 
original  and  not  at  secondary  authorities  when  they  assail  our  reputation  and 
our  rights. 

“  But  if  the  principle  on  which  this  application  is  based  should  be  admitted,  it  must 
be  carried  far  beyond  the  present  purpose.  If  all  are  to  be  released  from  taxation, 
when  they  cannot  conscientiously  derive  any  benefit  from  the  disbursement  of  the  money 
collected,  what  will  be  done  for  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  other  sects  who  are  opposed 
to  war  under  all  circumstances  ?  ” 

With  that  I  have  nothing  to  do,  and,  therefore,  I  w'ill  pass  on  to  another 
point, 

“  The  Roman  Catholics  complain  that  hooks  have  been  introduced  into  the  public 
schools  which  are  injurious  to  them  as  a  body.  It  is  allowed,  however,  that  the  pas¬ 
sages  in  these  books,  to  which  such  reference  is  made,  are  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  his¬ 
torical  ;  and  we  put  it  to  the  candor  of  the  Common  Council  to  say  whether  any  his¬ 
tory  of  Europe,  for  the  last  ten  centuries,  could  be  written,  which  could  either  omit 
to  mention  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  or  mention  it  without  recoi’ding  historical 
facts  unfavorable  to  thatChurch?” 

And  this  is  what  the  remonstrants  call  a  strong  issue.  They  assert  that  no 
history  could  be  written  which  could  either  omit  to  mention  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  or  mention  it  without  recording  historical  facts  unfavorable 
to  the  Catholic  Church.  If  this  be  the  case,  I  ask  you  whether,  as  citizens  en¬ 
titled  to  the  rights  of  citizens,  we  are  to  be  compelled  to  send  our  children  to 
schools  which  cannot  teach  our  children  history  without  blackening  us.  But 
again  they  say, 

“  We  assert  that  if  all  the  historical  facts  in  which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  taken  a 
prominent  part  could  be  taken  from  writers  of  her  own  communion  only,  the  incidents 
might  be  made,  more  objectionable  to  the  complainants,  than  any  book  to  which  they 
now  object.” 

No  doubt  of  it ;  and  it  only  proves  that  Catholic  historians  have  no 
interest  to  conceal  what  is  the  truth.  But  I  contend  that  there  are  pages 
in  the  Catholic  history  brighter  than  any  in  the  history  of  Methodism ; 
and  that  there  are  questions  and  passages  enough  for  reading  lessons, 
without  selecting  such  as  will  lead  the  mind  of  the  Catholic  child  to  be 
ashamed  of  his  ancestors.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  a  respecta¬ 
ble  church,  and  I  am  willing  to  treat  it  with  becoming  respect ;  but  it  is  a 
young  church ;  it  is  not  so  old  as  the  Catholic  Church,  and  therefore  has 
fewer  crimes  ;  but  I  contend  again  it  has  fewer  virtues  to  boast  of.  And 
in  its  career  of  a  hundred  years  it  has  done  as  little  for  mankind  as  any 
other  denomination, 

“  History  itself,  then,  must  be  falsified  for  their  accommodation  ;  and  yet  they  com¬ 
plain  that  the  system  of  education  adopted  in  the  public  schools  does  not  teach  the 
sinfulness  of  lying ! 

“  They  complain  that  no  religion  is  taught  in  these  schools,  and  declare  that  any, 
even  the  worst  form  of  Christianity,  would  be  better  than  none  ;  and  yet  they  object 
to  the  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  the  only  foundation  of  all  true  religion. 
Is  it  not  plain  then,  that  they  will  not  be  satisfied  with  any  thing  short  of  the  total 
abandonment  of  public  school  instruction,  or  the  appropriation  of  such  portion  of  the 
public  fund  as  they  may  claim,  to  their  own  sectarian  purposes?” 

All  the  time  they  go  on  the  false  issue.  They  charge  that  which  we 
disclaim,  and  they  reason  on  a  charge  of  their  own  invention,  and  which 
we  never  authorized.  Now,  as  I  have  a  word  to  say  about  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures,  1  may  as  well  say  it  at  this,  as  at  any  other  time.  Their  assumption 


134 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


is  that  because  the  Scriptures  are  read,  sufficient  precaution  is  taken 
against  infidelity.  But  I  do  not  agree  with  them  in  that  opinion,  and  I 
will  give  my  reason.  What  is  the  reason  that  there  is  such  a  diversity  of 
sects  all  claiming  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  centre  from  which  they  draw 
their  respective  contradictory  systems — that  book  which  aj^pears  out  of 
school  by  the  use  made  of  it,  to  be  the  source  of  all  dissension,  when  it 
does  not  come  to  the  minds  of  children  with  such  authority  as  to  fix  on 
their  minds  any  definite  lU’inciples  ?  As  regards  us,  while  the  Protestants 
say  theirs  is  the  true  version,  we  say  it  is  not  so.  We  treat  the  Scriptures 
reverently,  but  the  Protestant  version  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  a  complete 
copy,  and  as  it  has  been  altered  and  changed,  we  do  not  look  upon  it  as 
giving  the  whole  writings  which  were  given  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  We  object  not  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  to  the  Protestant 
version  without  note  or  comment.  We  think  it  too  much  to  ask  Protest¬ 
ants  to  relinquish  theirs  and  take  ours  for  the  use  of  the  public  schools. 
If  we  could  ask  you^ — if  we  could  jjropose  that  you  should  take  our  book 
— if  we  should  ask  you  to  put  out  the  Protestant  Scriptures  and  take  ours, 
with  our  note  and  comment,  do  you  think  Protestants  would  agree  to  it  ? 
Do  you  not  think  we  should  be  arraigned  as  enemies  of  the  Word  of  God? 
— for  that  is  one  charge  made  when  it  is  sought  to  denounce  us.  When 
we  speak  language  of  this  kind,  instead  of  understanding  us  according  to 
our  comprehension  of  the  su))ject,  they  charge  that  we  are  enemies  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  But  to  object  to  their  version  is  not  to  object  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures ;  and  I  am  prepared  to  show  them  that  no  denomination  has 
done  so  much  in  the  true  sense  for  the  Scriptures  as  the  Catholic  Church. 
The  remonstrants  add : 

“  But  this  is  not  all.  They  have  been  most  complaisantly  offered  the  censorship  of 
the  books  to  be  used  in  the  public  schools.  The  committee  to  whom  has  been  confided 
the  management  of  these  schools  in  this  city,  offered  to  allow  the  Roman  Catholic 
Bishop  to  expurgate  from  these  books  any  thing  offensive  to  him.” 

And  now  they  go  out  of  their  way  to  sneer  at  us,  and  you  will  observe 
(he  fliiipancy  with  which  they  do  it. 

“  But  the  offer  was  not  accepted  ;  perhaps,  for  the  same  reason  that  he  declined  to 
decide  on  the  admissibility  of  a  book  of  extracts  from  the  Bible,  which  had  been  sanc¬ 
tioned  by  certain  Roman  bishops  in  Ireland.  An  appeal,  it  seems,  had  gone  to  the 
Pope  on  the  subject,  and  nothing  could  be  said  or  done  in  the  nnatter  until  his  Holiness 
had  decided.  The  Common  Council  of  New  York  will  therefore  find,  that  when  they 
shall  have  conceded  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  this  city  the  selection  of  books  for  the 
use  of  the  public  schools,  that  these  books  must  undergo  the  censorship  of  a  foreign 
Potentate.  We  hope  the  time  is  far  distant  when  the  citizens  of  this  country  will 
allow  any  foreign  power  to  dictate  to  them  in  matters  relating  to  either  general  or 
municipal  law.” 

Prophets  again ;  but  not  prophets  of  charity.  I,  sir,  say  not  prophets 
of  good-will,  for  there  is  something  more  in  their  souls  than  the  public 
welfare.  There  is  something  in  their  insinuation  that  is  insulting,  and  a 
tone  which  does  not  show  a  mind  enlightened  and  enlarged,  and  an 
appreciation  of  equal  justice  and  equal  rights.  Just  their  way.  They 
hear  that  an  appeal  has  gone  to  the  Pope ;  and  if  we  desired  to  aj)peal, 
also,  we  should  claim  the  right  to  do  it  without  asking  permission  from 
any  one.  Catholics  all  over  the  world  do  it  when  their  consciences  make 
it  a  duty,  but  not  in  matters  of  this  kind.  “  These  books  must  undergo 
the  censorship  of  a  foreign  Potentate  !”  Now  we  regard  him  only  as 
supreme  in  our  Church,  and  there’s  an  end  of  it. 

“  We  cannot  conclude  this  memorial  without  noticing  one  other  ground  on  which 
the  Roman  Catholics,  in  their  late  appeal  to  their  fellow-citizens,  urged  their  sectarian 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


135 


elaims,  and  excused  their  conscientious  objections  to  the  public  schools.  Their  creed 
is  dear  to  them,  it  seems,  because  some  of  their  ancestors  have  been  martyrs  to  their 
faith.  This  was  an  unfortunate  allusion.” 

.Some  !  “  Some  of  their  tincestors  have  been  martyrs  to  their  faith.”  I 

speak  of  the  Catholics  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  when  yon  reflect 
on  the  bigoted  and  unjust  laws  which  Great  Britain  founded  against  all 
that  w'ere  Catholics,  by  which  their  churches  were  wrested  from  them,  and 
a  bribe  was  offered  as  an  inducement  to  the  double  crime  of  murder  and 
of  perjurj-',  when  it  authorized  any  man  to  bring  the  head  of  a  Catholic  to 
the  commissioner,  and  if  he  would  only  swear  it  was  the  head  of  a  priest 
he  got  the  same  price  as  for  the  head  of  a  wolf,  no  matter  whose  head  it 
was — and  when  legislation  of  that  kind  continued  for  centuries,  this,  you 
must  agree  with  me,  was  being  martyrs  indeed.  But  when  have  the 
Methodists  shown  a  sympathy  for  those  contending  for  the  rights  of  con¬ 
science  ?  When  the  Dissenters  of  England  claimed  to  be  released  from 
the  operation  of  the  “  Test  and  Corporation  ”  act  by  which  they  were 
excluded  from  civil  otfice,  did  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  assist 
them  ?  Not  a  solitary  petition  went  from  them  for  the  enlargement  of 
their  freedom.  And  is  it  a  wonder  that  we  look  to  conscience  and  admire 
those  who  had  the  firmness  to  suffer  for  conscience’  sake  ?  By  the  penal 
laws  against  Catholics  the  doors  of  Parliament  were  closed  against  us,  if 
we  had  a  conscience,  for  it  required  us  to  take  an  oath  which  we  did  not 
believe  to  be  true,  and  therefore  we  could  not  swear  it.  There  it  is,  sir ; 
it  is  because  we  have  a  conscience,  because  we  respect  it,  that  we  have 
suffered,  and  while  virtue  is  admired  on  earth,  the  fidelity  of  the  peojffe 
that  are  found  standing  by  the  right  of  conscience  will  command  the 
admiration  of  the  world.  And  yet,  we  are  told,  it  was  an  unfortunate 
allusion ! 

“  Did  not  the  Roman  Catholics  know,  that  they  addressed  many  of  their 
fellow-citizens  who  could  not  recur  to  the  memoirs  of  their  ancestors  without 
being  reminded  of  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantz — “  the  massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew’s  day,  the  fires  of  Smithfleld.”  What  is  that  to  us  ?  Are  we 
the  people  that  took  part  in  that  ?  “  Or  the  crusade  against  the  Waldenses? 

We  would  willingly  cover  these  scenes  with  the  mantle  of  charity.”  They  had 
better  not  make  the  attempt,  for  their  mantle  is  too  narrow.  “And  hope  that 
our  Roman  Catholic  fellow-citizens  will  in  future  avoid  whatever  has  a  tendency 
to  revive  the  painful  remembrance.” 

Let  them  enter  upon  that  chapter  and  discuss  the  charitableness  of  their 
religion,  and  I  am  prepared  to  prove — I  speak  it  with  confidence  in  the  presence 
of  this  honorable  assembly — that  the  Catholic  religion  is  more  charitable  to 
those  who  depart  from  her  pale,  than  any  other  that  ever  was  yoked  in  unholy 
alliance  with  civil  power. 

“Your  memorialists  had  hoped  that  the  intolerance  and  exclusiveness  which  had 
characterized  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Europe,  had  been  greatly  softened  under 
the  benign  influences  of  our  civil  institutions.  The  pertinacity  with  which  their  sectarian 
interests  are  now  urged,  has  dissipated  the  illusion.” 

Sectarian  interests,  again,  although  we  have  disclaimed  them. 

“We  were  content  with  their  having  excluded  us,  ‘ex  cathedra,’  from  all  claim  to 
heaven,  for  we  were  sure  they  did  not  possess  the  keys,  notwithstanding  their  confident 
pretensions.” 

Why  they  need  not  be  uneasy  about  our  excluding  them  from  heaven,  for 
their  opinion  is  that  they  have  no  chance  to  enter  if  they  have  anything  to  do 
with  us ;  and  therefore  our  excluding  them  is  of  no  avail. 

“  Nor  did  we  complain  they  would  not  allow  us  any  participation  in  the  benefits  of 
purgatory — ” 

Pray  what  has  that  to  do  with  Common  School  Eductition  ? 


136 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


“  For  it  is  a  place  they  have  made  for  themselves,  and  of  which  they  may  claim  the 
exclusive  property.” 

W ell  it  is  no  matter  whether  we  believe  in  purgatory  or  not ;  it  is  no  matter 
for  the  Common  Council  to  decide.  But  if  they  are  not  satisfied  with  our 
purgatory,  and  wish  to  go  farther,  they  may  prove  the  truth  of  the  proverb 
which  says  “  they  may  go  farther  and  fare  worse.” 

“  But  we  do  protest  against  any  appropriation  of  the  public  school  fund  for  their 
exclusive  benefit,  or  for  any  other  purposes  whatever.  Assured  that  the  Common 
Council  will  do  what  it  is  right  to  do  in  the  premises,  we  are,  gentlemen,  with  grea 
respect,  your  most  obedient  servants,  N.  Bangs,  Thom.vs  E.  Bond,  George  Feck.” 

And  now  I  have  gone  through  these  two  remonstrances,  both  of  which,  it 
will  be  seen,  refer  to  the  document  of  the  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen,  and 
rest  their  opposition  on  the  same  ground.  Of  that  document,  I  w'ill  pass  over 
the  introduction,  but  I  may  observe  that  its  authors,  by  ivliat  influence  I  am 
unable  to  say,  have  been  made  to  rest  their  report  upon  an  issue  such  as  I  have 
already  described,  and  for  which  our  petition  furnishes  no  basis.  I  will  first 
call  your  attention  to  the  following  observations  : 

”  The  petitioners  who  appeared,  also  contended  that  they  contributed,  in  common 
with  all  other  citizens  who  were  taxed  for  the  purpose,  to  the  accumulation  of  the 
Common  School  Fund,  and  that  they  were  therefore  entitled  to  a  participation  in  its 
advantages  ;  that  now  they  receive  no  benefit  from  the  fund  inasmuch  as  the  members 
of  the  Catholic  Churches  could  not  conscientiously  send  their  children  to  schools  in 
which  the  religious  doctrines  of  their  fathers  were  exposed  to  ridicule  or  censure.  The 
truth  and  justice  of  the'first  branch  of  this  propositionr.^ 

That  is  the  payment  of  taxes, 

—  “  cannot  be  questioned.  The  correctness  of  the  latter  part  of  the  argument,  so  far  as 
the  same  relates  to  books  or  exercises  of  any  kind  in  the  Public  Schools,  reflecting  on 
the  Catholic  Church, was  denied  by  the  School  Society.” 

Now  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  this  denial,  of  anything  objectionable  in 
the  books  of  the  Public  School  Society,  was  made  at  the  period  of  the  last 
application.  I  am  persuaded  those  gentlemen,  if  they  had  known  there  was 
any  thing  objectionable  to  the  Catholics,  would  not  have  denied  it.  I  am  sure 
they  believed  there  was  nothing,  and  from  this  circumstance  I  think  I  may 
fairly  draw  this  inference,  that  they  had  not  paid  that  attention  to  the  books 
which  they  should  have  done,  knowing  the  variety  of  denominations  contribut¬ 
ing  to  this  fund  and  entitled  to  its  benefits ;  or  knowing  this  and  the  feelings 
and  principles  of  Catholics,  that  they  were  incompetent  for  the  proper  discharge 
of  their  responsible  duties.  It  is  only  on  one  of  these  two  grounds  that  I  can 
account  for  their  denial.  But  since  that  time  they  have  not  only  admitted  that 
the  objection  was  correct,  but  they  have  expunged  passages  from  the  books 
which  at  the  time  of  this  denial  they  said  did  not  exist.  I  shall  pass  on  now  to 
the  two  questions  on  which  the  decision  of  the  Committee  was  made  to  rest. 
The  first  is — “  Have  the  Common  Council  of  this  city,  under  the  existing  laws 
relative  to  Oonunon  Schools  in  the  city  of  New' York,  a  legal  right  to  appropriate 
any  portion  of  the  School  Fund  to  religious  corporations  ?” 

Whether  they  have  or  not  one  thing  is  clear  and  certain,  that  it  is  not  as  a 
“  Religious  Corporation”  that  we  apply  for  it ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  this 
should  have  struck  the  attention  of  the  Public  School  Society,  and  the  other 
gentlemen  who  have  remonstrated.  We  do  not  apply  as  a  religious  body — we 
apply  in  the  identical  capacity  in  W'hich  we  are  taxed — as  citizens  of  the  com- 
monw'calth,  without  an  encroachment  on  principle  or  the  violation  of  any 
man’s  conscience.  But  secondly  they  ask — “  Would  the  exercise  of  such  power 
be  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  constitution,  and  the  nature  of  our 
government  ?” 

Certainly  not.  If  the  constitution  and  government  have  determined  that  no 
religious  denomination  shall  receive  any  civil  privilege,  the  exercise  of  such 
power  will  not  be  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  constitution  and  the 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COTJKCIL. 


137 


nature  of  our  government.  But  there  is  throughout  and  in  all  these  documents 
a  squeamishness,  a  false  delicacy,  a  persuasion  that  eveiything  which  excludes 
religion  abroad  is  right  and  liberal.  It  would  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  follow 
this  report  sentence  by  sentence  if  there  had  not  been  so  much  reliance  placed 
on  it  by  those  who  have  remonstrated ;  but  as  so  much  consequence  has  been 
attached  to  it  I  will  call  your  attention  to  some  other  passages.  They  go  on  to 
say  :  “  Private  associations  and  religious  corporations  were  excluded  from  the 

management  of  the  fund  and  the  government  of  the  schools.  Private  interest, 
under  this  system,  could  not  appropriate  the  public  treasure  to  private  purposes, 
and  religious  zeal  could  not  divert  it  to  the  purposes  of  proselytism.” 

AVhy  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind  intended.  We  have  been  driven  by  the 
ol.  ligation  of  our  consciences,  and  at  our  expense,  which  we  are  poorly  able  to 
bear,  to  provide  schools  ;  but  they  are  not  convenient,  they  are  not  well  venti¬ 
lated,  and  are  not  well  calculated  to  give  that  development  to  your  young 
citizens  which  they  ought  to  have  ;  why  argue,  then,  against  religious  corpo¬ 
rations,  and,  in  treating  this  question,  bring  prejudices  into  vdew  which 
ought  to  have  no  existence  in  reality  ?  They  then  go  on  to  give  the 
history  and  origin  of  the  present  law  and  of  the  Public  School  Fund,  and 
it  seems  that  for  a  period  of  time,  and  a  long  period, the  Legislature  desig¬ 
nated  the  schools  which  might  liarticqiate  in  this  bounty.  Each  religions 
denomination  provided  for  the  instruction  of  its  own  poor;  they  had 
provided  schools,  and  their  exertions  were  honorable  and  laudable.  The 
Legislature  granted  its  aid,  and  the  respective  Societies  were  encouraged  to 
go  on  -svitli  the  good  work,  and  they  did  go  on  year  after  year,  and  then 
there  was  never  heard  that  disputation  which  appears  now  to  be  so  much 
dreaded.  There  was  not  then  heard  dissentation  between  neighbors,  or 
strife  betw’een  societies  ;  everything  went  on  peaceably,  and  why  ?  Because 
the  schools  and  the  citizens  were  not  then  charged  that  religion  was  a 
forbidden  subject.  Nor  should  you  now  make  it  a  forbidden  part  of 
education,  because  on  religious  princijrles  alone  can  conscience  find  a 
resting-place.  It  should  be  made  known  that  here  conscience  is  supreme — 
that  here  all  men  are  free  to  choose  the  views  which  their  judgments,  with 
a  sense  of  their  resj)onsibility  to  an  eternal  weal  or  woe,  shall  offer  for  their 
adoption.  It  should  be  taught  that  here  neighbors  have  the  righj^  to  differ, 
and  whatever  is  the  right  of  one  inust  be  recognized  as  the  right  of  the 
other ;  and  the  distribution  of  this  fund  will  be  better  calculated  to  benefit 
the  community  than  it  can  be  by  these  public  schools  where  everything 
seems  to  be  at  par  except  religion,  and  that  is  below  par  at  an  immense 
discount.  They  tell  us  then  that — “  The  law  was  imperative  in  its  char¬ 
acter,  and  the  several  religious  societies  of  the  city  possessed  a  legal  right 
to  draw  their  respective  jDortions  of  the  fund  from  the  public  treasury, 
subject  only  to  the  restriction,  that  the  money  so  received  should  be  apirro- 
priated  to  the  puiqtoses  of  free  and  common  education.” 

But  that  right  to  draw"  has  been  taken  away  ;  yet  there  is  nothing  in 
the  act  by  which  the  right  to  draw  is  taken  away  which  forbids  their 
receiving  it  still,  if  in  the  judgment  of  this  Honorable  Body  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  case  entitle  them  to  it.  It  is  not  an  imijeachment — the 
legislature  had  no  intention  to  refiect  on  religious  bodies — it  had  no 
intention  to  blackball  religion  in  the  Public  Schools ;  and  yet  that  view  has 
been  taken  of  it.  Such  m  as  not  the  case ;  but  because  circumstances  had 
arisen ;  and  what  were  they  ?  AVhy  gross  abuses  had  been  practiced  by 
one  of  the  religious  societies,  and — “The  funds  received  by  the  Church 
were  applied  to  other  purposes  than  those  contemplated  by  the  act.” 

Under  some  pretext  the  favor  to  expend  the  school  moneys  had  been 
conferred  on  that  Society  in  a  way  that  distinguished  it  from  all  other 
Christian  denominations  and  societies  ;  and  the  othei  seeing  this  privilege 


138 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


conferred  on  one  and  I'ot  on  the  rest,  ventured  to  remonstrate  with  the  Legis¬ 
lature  ;  they  intimated  that  the  partiality  to  that  Society  of  Baptists  was 
an  injustice  to  others,  and  they  remonstrated  against  the  law  conferring 
exclusive  privileges  and  against  no  other  thing  whatever.  And  yet  by 
every  document,  and  by  this  very  document,  it  seems  to  be  imagined  that 
the  Legislature  did  not  revoke  special  favors  granted  to  that  Society,  but 
withdrew  its  aid  from  all  Christian  churches ;  so  that  all  the  men  wdio 
remonstrated  against  this  partial  legislation  were  found  to  have  been 
themselves  deprived  of  the  privilege  which  they  had  enjoyed,  and  this  on 
the  strength  of  their  own  remonstrances  for  quite  another  thing.  And  the 
discretion  which  the  Legislature  had  exercised  to  designate  the  schools 
whicli  should  receive  this  fund  was  transferred  to  this  Honorable  Body, 
the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York.  And  why  was  it  trans¬ 
ferred  ?  I  cannot  speak  positively,  but  while  it  seems  to  me  that  there 
were  abuses  shown  to  exist  by  the  remonstrants,  of  -which  they  made  com¬ 
plaint,  we  may  suppose  the  Legislature  conceived  it  difficult  for  them  to 
take  cognizance  of  the  matter,  not  being  on  the  sj^ot,  but  that  the  Common 
Council  being  here,  and  being  a  body  chosen  by  the  people  in  which,  con¬ 
sequently,  the  public  would  have  confidence,  was  the  best  and  most  fitting 
body  to  designate  from  time  to  time  the  institutions  or  schools  which 
should  be  entitled  to  receive  those  school  moneys.  This  imist  have  been 
their  intention,  and  yet  this  has  been  interj^reted  as  repealing  the  law  in 
order  to  deprive  those  denominations  of  a  legal  right  (for  right  they  had, 
and  they  could  come  and  demand  the  money)  and  not  a  mere  transfer  of 
the  discretion  to  give  this  money  from  the  Legislature  to  the  Common 
Council  of  New  York.  Now  all  this,  which  is  so  plain  and  simple  has 
been  construed  by  these  gentlemen  of  the  Public  School  Society  as  what  ? 
As  conferring  a  monopoly  upon  them.  As  a  law  disqualifying  all  religious 
denominations  receiving  it.  So  it  has  been  interpreted.  But  if  it  were 
60,  we  ask  not  for  the  money  on  the  ground  that  we  are  a  religious  corpora¬ 
tion,  but  of  public  utility,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  an  education  to  a 
large  and  destitute  class  which  otherwise  will  not  have  the  means  to  pro¬ 
cure  it.  We  ask  it  to  secure  a  public  advantage,  and  if  the  objections 
anywher^exist  to  which  I  have  directed  your  attention,  they  do  not  apply 
to  our  case.  Gentlemen,  I  think  it  unnecessary  to  detain  you  any  longer 
on  this  subject  as  referred  to  in  this  document,  because  while  the  question 
is  composed  of  one  simple  fact,  they  are  arguing  against  dangers  which 
do  not  threaten  them.  But  then  they  go  on  to  say,  “  to  prevent  in  our 
day  and  country,  the  recurrence  of  scenes  so  abhorrent  to  every  principle 
of  justice,  humanity,  and  right,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
of  the  several  States,  have  declared  in  some  form  or  other,  that  there 
should  be  no  establishment  of  religion  by  law ;  that  the  affairs  of  the 
State  should  be  kept  entirely  distinct  from,  and  unconnected  with  those 
of  the  Church ;  that  every  human  being  should  worship  God,  according 
to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience ;  that  all  churches  and  religions 
should  be  supported  by  voluntary  contribution ;  and  that  no  tax  should 
ever  be  imposed  for  the  benefit  of  any  denomination  of  religion,  for  any 
cause,  or  under  any  pretence  whatever.” 

All  this  is  doctrine  to  which  we  subscribe  most  heartily.  And  while 
we  seek  to  be  relieved  from  the  evils  under  which  we  sulfer,  we  do  not 
seek  relief  to  the  detriment  of  any  other  sect.  What !  is  this  country 
independent  of  religion  ?  Is  it  a  country  of  Atheism,  or  of  an  Established 
Religion  ?  Neither  the  one  nor  the  other ;  but  a  country  which  makes  no 
law  for  religion,  but  places  the  right  of  conscience  above  all  other  authority 
— granting  equality  to  all,  protection  to  all,  preference  to  none.  And 
while  aL  these  documents  have  gone  on  the  presumption  of  preference,  all 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


139 


we  want  is  that  we  may  he  entitled  to  protection  and  not  preference.  We  wanl 
that  the  public  money  shall  not  be  employed  to  sap  religion  in  the  minds  of 
our  children — that  they  may  have  the  advantages  of  education  without  the  in¬ 
termixture  of  religious  views  with  their  common  knowledge  which  goes  to  de¬ 
stroy  that  which  we  believe  to  be  the  true  religion.  There  is  another  featui-e 
connected  with  this  subject — which  is  the  definition  given  of  a  public  school 
such  as  should  be  entitled  to  this  money.  “  If  the  school  money,”  says  these 
gentlemen, — and  I  must  believe  they  are  imposed  on  by  a  statement  which  is 
not  correct.  I  believe  if  they  had  known  the  true  statement,  they  Avould  not 
have  published  in  their  report  such  a  statement  as  this :  “  If  the  school  money 
should  be  divided  among  the  religious  denominations  generally,  as  some 
have  proposed,  there  will  be  nothing  left  for  the  support  of  schools  of  a 
l)ureiy  civil  character  ;  and .  if  there  should  be,  in  such  a  state  of  things, 
any  citizen  who  could  not,  according  to  his  opinions  of  right  and  wrong, 
conscientiously  send  his  child  to  the  school  of  an  existing  sect,  there  would 
be  no  public  school  in  which  he  could  be  educated.  This  might,  and 
probably  wmuld  be  the  case  with  hundreds  of  our  citizens.” 

Now,  let  me  for  a  moment  invite  your  attention  to  that  part  of  the  sul)- 
ject  which  I  have  now  the  honor  to  submit  to  you  ;  and  it  is  that  part  on 
which  all  these  documents  go,  that  religious  teaching  would  vitiate  all 
claim  to  a  participation  in  this  public  fund.  A  common  education,  then, 
as  understood  by  the  State,  is  a  secular  education,  and  these  documents 
contend  that  any  religious  teaching,  no  matter  how  slight,  will  vitiate  all 
claim  to  a  participation  in  this  fund.  Now,  the  Public  School  Society,  in 
their  reports,  have  from  time  to  time  stated  themselves,  and,  observe,  with 
a  consciousness  that  the  jealous  eye  of  the  community  is  upon  them — they 
state,  still  under  this  restriction,  that  they  have  imparted  religion.  Now, 
if  this  doctrine  be  correct,  they  are  no  more  entitled  to  the  Common  School 
Fund  than  others  ?  Or,  is  the  doctrine  correct,  and  yet  one  must  abide  by 
it  and  not  another  ?  Again,  these  gentlemen  charge  us  with  accusing  them 
of  teaching  infidelity,  when  taking  this  tax  they  give  that  education  which, 
they  state  to  us  when  we  apply  for  a  portion  of  this  money,  the  State  con¬ 
templates  to  give  the  scholar.  Now,  if  the  child  be  brought  up  without 
religion  wdiat  is  he  ?  “  Oh,”  they  say,  “  we  do  not  teach  it.”  Is  it  neces¬ 

sary  to  teach  infidelity?  It  does  not  require  the  active  process.  To  make 
an  infidel,  what  is  it  necessary  to  do  ?  Cage  him  up  in  a  room,  give  him  a 
secular  education  from  the  age  of  five  years  to  twenty-one,  and  I  ask  you 
what  he  wall  come  out,  if  not  an  infidel  ?  Whether  he  will  know  anything 
about  God  ?  And  yet  they  tell  you  that  religious  teaching  is  a  disqualifica¬ 
tion.  AYhat  will  a  child  be,  then,  if  you  give  hun  their  education  from  his  youth 
up  to  the  age  of  twenty-one  ?  Will  he  know  anything  of  God,  and  of  a  Divine 
Redeemer  ?  of  a  Trinity,  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  redemption 
of  the  world  by  the  atonement  of  Clirist,  or  of  any  of  those  grand  doctrines 
which  are  the  basis  and  corner-stone  of  our  Christianity  ?  And  because  we 
object  to  a  system  of  teaching  which  leads  to  practical  infidelity,  we  are  ac¬ 
cused  of  charging  the  Public  School  Society  with  being  infidels.  They  furnish 
the  basis  of  the  charge ;  we  do  not  wish  to  do  so.  Now,  I  ask  you  whether  it 
was  the  intention  of  the  Legislature  of  New'  York,  or  of  the  people  of  the  Suite, 
that  the  Public  Schools  should  be  made  precisely  such  as  the  infidels  want  ? 
Permit  me  to  say,  when  I  use  the  term  infidel,  I  mean  no  disrespect  to  those 
that  are  so.  I  w'ould  not  be  one ;  but  I  respect  their  right  to  be  what  they 
please.  A  few  days  ago,  a  gentleman,  who  professes  to  be  one  of  this  class, 
and  Avho  would  not  allow  his  children  to  be  scholars  where  religion  is  taught 
at  all,  said  he  could  send  them  to  the  Public  School,  for  there  the  education 
suited  him.  What,  then,  is  the  consequenee  ?  That  w'hile  the  public  educa¬ 
tion  of  New  York  is  guarded  in  such  a  manner  as  to  suit  the  infidel,  the  chil- 


140 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


dren  become  ,so.  And  is  there  any  authority  in  this  Board,  or  of  a  legislative  body 
at  Albany,  or  is  there  any  Board  in  the  Union,  with  power  by  the  constitution, 
to  exclude  religion  or  to  engraft  it  ?  Neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  The  in¬ 
fidel  says  truly,  that  there  is  no  religion  taught,  and,  therefore,  he  can  send  his 
children  ;  and  I  should  like  to  know  why  any  member  of  a  Christian  church 
should  be  forced  to  do  violence  to  his  convictions  and  not  be  permitted  to  en¬ 
joy  equal  advantages  ?  If  the  infidel  can  send  his  children  to  these  schools  be¬ 
cause  no  religion  is  taught  there,  and  who,  therefore,  has  to  make  no  sacrifices 
of  conscience,  why  cannot  the  Christian  enjoy  equal  advantages  ?  They  say 
their  instruction  is  not  sectarianism  ;  but  it  is  ;  and  of  what  kind  ?  The  sec¬ 
tarianism  of  infidelity  in  its  every  feature.  But  because  it  is  of  a  negative  kind, 
and  they  do  not  admit  the  doctrines  of  any  particular  denomination,  because 
they  do  not  profess  to  teach  religion,  therefore  it  is  suited  for  all  1  As  a  test, 
therefore,  of  this  principle,  give  this  purely  secular  knowdedge  to  a  young  man, 
keep  him  from  intercourse  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  give  him  nothing  else, 
and  what  sort  of  a  man  would  he  be  ?  What  would  be  the  state  of  his  mind  ? 
A  blank — a  perfect  blank  as  to  religious  impressions.  But  I  contend  that  it  is 
infidelity,  and  I  hope  the  Public  School  gentlemen  hear  what  I  say.  But,  again, 
I  do  not  charge  it  on  their  intention,  and  their  assertion  is  purely  gratuitous 
when  they  say  that  such  an  accusation  is  made  against  them.  Here  is  the  ob¬ 
servation  of  the  report  on  tliis  subject : 

“  If  religious  instruction  is  communicated,  it  is  foreign  to  the  intentions  of  the 
school  system,  and  should  be  instantly  abandoned.  Religious  instruction  is  no  part  of  a 
Common  School  education.” 

Such,  then,  is  the  nature  of  that  report  which,  I  take  leave  to  repeat,  has 
been  prepared  by  the  gentlemen  who  drew  it  up  as  a  committee,  under  the  im¬ 
pression  fixed  on  their  minds  that  Catholics  want  this  money  to  promote  their 
religion,  and  that  if  it  were  granted  to  us  others  would  want  it  for  their  respec¬ 
tive  religions  also ;  and  on  this  assumption  they  decided  ;  but  against  this  false 
issue  I  protest,  whether  set  forth  in  this  report  or  in  the  two  remonstrances  be¬ 
fore  this  Council — one  from  the  Public  School  Society,  and  the  other  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  not  my  business  to  speak  in  relation  to  the 
Public  School  Society  at  large.  Of  its  history  I  have  taken  pains  to  make  my¬ 
self  sufficiently  possessed  to  speak ;  and  I  find  that  in  its  origin,  so.  far  from 
disclaiming  all  connection  with  religion,  so  far  from  conceiving  religious  teach¬ 
ing  disadvantageous,  it  was  originally  incorporated  for  the  purpose  of  supply¬ 
ing  the  wants  of  the  destitute  portion  of  the  population,  and  their  petition  for  a 
charter  set  forth 

“  The  benefits  which  would  result  to  society  from  the  education  of  such  children,  by 
implanting  in  their  minds  the  principles  of  religion  and  morality.” 

At  this  time  every  denomination  taught  its  own,  and  received  an  equal  por¬ 
tion  of  the  fund  from  the  public  authorities  to  aid  them  in  their  good  vmrk,  so 
that  their  children  w^ere  provided  for,  and  this  Society  came  to  gather  in  the 
neglected  and  the  outcast — they  came  as  gleaners,  after  the  reapers  had  gone 
through  the  field,  and  a  most  benevolent  purpose  theirs  was ;  and  their  object 
I  repeat,  when  they  applied  to  the  Legislature, was  set  forth  to  be — (for  they 
did  not  conceal  the  advantages  of  a  religious  education) — to  produce  benefits  to 
society  by  the  implanting  in  the  minds  of  such  children  the  principles  of  re¬ 
ligion  and  morality.  There  were  children  belonging  to  no  denomination,  and 
this  Society  seeing  the  benefits  which  would  result  to  society  from  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  such  children  by  implanting  in  their  minds  the  principles  of  religion  and 
morality,  undertook  this  benevolent  work,  and  covered  themselves  and  the  name 
of  their  Society  with  glory  by  that  undertaking.  But  it  is  strange  that  what 
then  was  so  advantageous  to  the  community — the  implanting  in  the  minds  of 
childi'en  the  principles  of  religion  and  morality — should  have  ceased  to  be  so 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


141 


now ;  and  that  they  or  their  successors  should  seek  to  make  that  vety  thing  a 
disqualification,  and  to  turn  it  against  all  denominations  of  Christians,  and 
claim  themselves  to  monopolise  the  fund  and  the  teaching  on  the  principle  that 
no  religion  shall  be  imparted.  Now,  has  the  Legislature  seen  tit  to  alter  the 
character  so  as  to  make  religious  teaching  a  disqualification  of  all  other  sects  ? 

Was  it  for  that  purpose  that  this  Society,  step  by  step,  obtained  enlarged 
privileges,  by  which  not  only  the  neglected  children  of  the  community,  but 
those  of  others,  came  under  their  care,  that  they  obtained  grants  from  the 
public  treasury  and  the  exchequer  of  the  city,  to  an  amount  of  many  thous¬ 
ands  of  dollars,  until  the  Society  claims  to  be  the  true  and  only  Society, 
though  existing  as  a  private  corporation,  electing  its  own  body,  fixing  a  tax 
for  the  privilege  of  membership,  sometimes  $10,  at  others  $20,  $25,  and  $50, 
any  of  which  sums  is  too  much  for  a  poor  man  to  pay ;  and  out  of  this  or¬ 
ganized  body  electing  the  Trustees  to  carry  on  the  work  ? 

I  mention  this,  not  to  blame  them,  for  they  believe  they  are  doing  good, 
out  to  show  that  even  with  men  who  are  honorable  in  every  day-life,  how 
much  watchfulness  and  vigilance,  how  much  tact  and  talent,  is  used  to  grasp 
more  and  more,  till  they  absorb  all,  and  completely  deprive  all  others  of  any 
participation  in  the  advantages  of  controlling  this  fund. 

It  is  not  my  intention,  as  it  is  not  my  peculiar  province,  to  enter  into  the 
legal  part  of  the  argument ;  but  I  have  to  regret  that  the  gentleman  who  did 
intend  to  treat  it,  and  to  whose  department  it  belonged,  has  been  unfor¬ 
tunately  prevented  by  the  bursting  of  a  small  blood-vessel.  But  though  my 
experience  has  not  qualified  me  to  enter  into  legal  matters,  yet,  as  a  citizen, 

I  might  have  the  right  to  express  my  opinion  on  the  monopoly  which  this 
Society  claims ;  and  that  opinion  is  contrary  to  the  monopoly,  and  not  only 
contrary  to  their  Tuonopoly,  simply  regarded  as  a  monopoly,  but  because  I 
believe  that  a  monopoly  of  this  description  should  be  regarded  with  double 
jealousy.  Why  ?  Because  this  monopoly  is  of  greater  weight  than  in  ordi¬ 
nary  cases;  of  great  weight  pecuniarily — for  last  year  the  fund  amounted  to 
$115,000 — ^because  the  distribution  of  that  money  gives  to  them  a  patronage 
which,  considering  the  weakness  of  human  nature,  is  in  danger  of  being  used 
disadvantageously ;  because  it  gives  to  them  privileges  of  infinitely  higher 
importance  than  any  that  can  be  estimated  by  dollars  and  cents — the  privi¬ 
lege  of  stamping  their  peculiar  character  on  the  minds  of  thousands  and  tens 
of  thousands  of  our  children.  They  ought  to  be  men,  to  discharge  the  trust 
of  such  a  monopoly,  as  pure  as  angels,  and  almost  imbued  with  wisdom  from 
above — such  men  they  should  be,  when  they  would  venture  to  come  and 
stand  by  the  mother's  side,  and  say,  in  effect,  “  Give  me  the  darling  which 
V  >a  have  nourished  at  your  breast — give  it  to  me,  a  stranger,  .and  I  will  direct 
its  mind.  True,  you  are  its  parent;  but  you  are  not  fit  to  guide  its  youthful 
progress,  and  to  implant  true  principles  in  its  mind  ;  therefore  give  it  to  me, 
and  give  me  also  the  means  wherewith  to  instruct  it.”  That  is  the  position 
of  that  Society ;  and  they  ought  to  be  ■  almost  more  than  men  for  this — as 
doubtless  they  are  honorable  men  in  their  proper  places;  but  of  that  we 
should  have  the  most  satisfactory  evidence,  that  we  may  be  well  assured 
that  they  are  fitted  to  discharge  their  duties.  It  is  this  consideration  that 
brought  me  here,  as  the  first  pastor  of  a  body  of  people,  large  and  numer¬ 
ous  as  they  are  known  to  be  ;  but  poor  as  many  of  them  are,  and  exposed 
to  many  hardships,  they  have  children  with  immortal  souls,  whose  condi¬ 
tion  is  involved  in  this  question,  and  if  it  is  an  impropriety  in  the  clerical 
character,  I  would  rather  undergo  the  reproach  than  neglect  to  advocate 
their  rights,  as  far  as  I  have  the  power,  with  my  feeble  ability. 

The  Catholics  of  the  city  of  New  York  may  be  estimated  as  one-fifth  f»f 
the  population ;  and  when  you  take  account  of  the  class  of  children  usually 
attending  the  Public  Schools,  and  consider  how  many  there  ar\j  in  this  city 


142 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


who  are  in  affluent  circumstances,  which  enable  them  to  give  an  education 
to  their  children,  who  do  not  therefore  participate  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Public  Schools;  and  when  you  consider  the  numbers  not  attending  any 
school  at  all,  I  say,  of  those  people,  who,  by  their  poverty,  are  the  objects 
most  usually  composing  the  number  that  require  the  assistance  of  the  Oom- 
mon  School  Fund, Catholics  are  one-third,  if  not  more.  And  when  I  see  this 
one-third  excluded — respecting,  as  I  do,  their  welfare  in  this  life,  as  well 
as  their  welfare  in  a  brighter  world — then  it  is  that  I  come  forward  thus 
publicly,  and  stand  here  to  plead  for  them.  I  conceive  we  have  our  rights 
in  question,  and,  therefore,  most  respectfully,  I  demand  them  from  this 
Honorable  Board. 

I  am  not  surprised  that  there  should  be  remonstrances  against  our  claim ; 
liut  I  did  hope,  in  an  age  as  enlightened  as  this  is,  and  among  gentlemen 
of  known  liberality  of  feeling,  that  their  opposition  would  not  have  been 
characterized  as  this  has  been.  However,  it  is  not  to  me  a  matter  of  sur¬ 
prise;  for  I  believe  if  some  of  those  gentlemen,  who  consider  themselves 
now  as  eminent  Christians,  had  lived  at  the  period  when  Lazarus  lay  lan¬ 
guishing  at  the  gate  of  the  rich  man,  petitioning  for  the  crumbs  that  fell 
from  the  table,  they  would  have  sent  their  remonstrance  against  his 
2)etition. 

When  the  Methodist  Episcoi^al  Church  sent  its  petition  for  a  portion  of 
this  fund,  some  eight  years  ago,  then  it  was  not  unconstitutional  1  Yet,  did 
the  Catholics  send  in  their  remonstrance  against  it  ?  When  their  theo¬ 
logical  seminaries  obtained  (and  they  still  receive)  the  bounty  of  the  State, 
did,  or  do,  the  Catholics  com^dain  ?  Has  there  been  a  single  instance  of 
illiberality  on  the  jjart  of  the  Catholics,  or  a  want  of  disj^osition  to  grant 
rights  as  universal  as  the  nature  of  man  may  require  ?  And  I  have  been 
astonished  only  at  this,  that  good  men,  with  good  intentions,  should  prefer 
to  cling  to  a  system,  and  to  the  money  raised  for  its  sirp2)ort  by  the  jDublic 
liberality — that  they  would  sooner  see  tens  of  thousands  of  jjoor  children 
contending  with  ignorance,  and  the  com2Janions  of  vice,  than  concede  one 
iota  of  their  mono2)oly,  in  order  that  others  may  enjoy  their  rights.  I  say 
this,  because  I  am  authorized  to  say  it. 

And  what  am  I  to  infer,  but,  that  they  2Jrefer  the  means  to  the  end.  The 
end  designed,  is  to  convey  knowledge  to  the  minds  of  our  children ;  the 
means  is  the  2)ublic  fund ;  and,  by  refusing  to  cause  the  slightest  variation 
in  their  system,  they  cling  to  the  means,  while  they  leave  thousands  of 
children  without  the  benefit  which  the  State  intended  to  confer.  They  may 
23ursue  that  course,  but  the  experience  of  the  2>ast  should  have  taught  them 
that,  while  they  maintain  their  present  character,  a  large  portion  of  their 
fellow-citizens  have  not — cannot  have — confidence  in  them. 

But  they  have  said  that,  if  a  portion  of  this  fund  is  given  to  Catholics, 
all  other  sects  will  want  it.  Then,  let  them  have  it.  But  I  do  not  see  that 
that  is  2}robable ;  and  my  reason  is  this :  They  have  sent  in  remonstrances 
against  the  claim  of  the  Catholics,  as  you  will  see  by  a  reference  to  docu¬ 
ment  Yo.  80,  all  of  which  go  to  23rove  that  they  are  satisfied  with  the  2ires- 
ent  Public  School  System.  And  if  they  are  satisfied,  and  their  children  de¬ 
rive  benefit  from  it,  let  them  continue  to  frequent  the  schools  as  they  do 
now.  The  schools  are  no  benefit  to  Catholics  now  ;  w'e  have  no  confidence 
in  them  ;  there  is  no  harmony  of  feeling  between  them  and  us ;  we  have  no 
confidence  that  those  civil  and  religious  rights  that  belong  to  us  will  be 
enioyed,  while  the  Public  School  Society  retains  its  2^resent  mono])oly. 
"VVe  do  not  receive  benefit  from  these  schools;  do  not,  then,  take  from 
Catholic?  their  2)ortion  of  the  fund,  by  taxation,  and  hand  it  over  to  those 
who  do  not  give  them  an  equivalent  in  return.  Let  those  who  can,  receive 
the  advantages  of  these  schools ;  but  as  Catholics  cannot,  do  not  tie  them 


SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


143 


to  a  system  wliicli  is  intended  for  the  advantage  of  a  class  of  societj  of 
which  they  form  one-third,  but  from  which  system  tl.  cy  can  receive  no 
benefit. 

Tliere  are  many  other  topics  connected  with  this  subject,  to  which  I 
might  advert ;  but  I  must  apologize  for  the  length  of  time  that  I  have 
tresi^assed  on  your  patience.  I  feel,  unaccustomed  as  I  am  to  address  such 
a  body,  and  hurried  as  was  my  preparation,  that  I  have  not  been  able  to 
present  the  subject  before  you  in  that  clear  and  lucid  manner  that  would 
make  it  interesting ;  but  it  was  not  with  that  view  that  I  claimed  your 
attention  in  relation  to  it ;  it  was  with  far  higher  motives :  and  I  now, 
with  confidence,  submit  it  to  your  judgment. 


BISHOP  HUGHES’  SECOND  DAY’S  SPEECH  BEFORE  THE  BOARD 
OF  ALDERMEN  AND  COUNCILMEN,  IN  ANSWER  TO  MR.  SEDG¬ 
WICK,  MR.  KETCHUM,  DR.  BOND,  DR.  SPRING,  AND  OTHERS, 
WHO  ADDRESSED  THE  CITY  COUNCIL  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE 
PETITION  OP  THE  CATHOLICS;  ALSO  THE  DISCUSSION,  IN 
REGARD  TO  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  RHEMISH  TESTAMENT 
AS  A  CATHOLIC  VERSION,  ETC. 

When  Mr.  Ketchum  concluded  his  argument  on  the  first  day,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Bond  appeared  as  the  representative  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  but  he  gave  way  to  the  Right  Rer.  Bishop 
Hughes,  who  desired  to  make  a  brief  reply  to  the  two  legal  gentle¬ 
men  who  had  addressed  the  Board.  He  said : 

I  have  a  few  remarks  that  I  wish  to  make,  partly  in  reference  to 
myself  and  partly  to  my  principles,  and  the  views  submitted  with 
regard  to  those  principles  ;  but  the  debate  has  taken  a  range  too 
wide  and  too  legal  for  me  to  pretend  to  follow  it  throughout.  I  am 
not  accustomed  to  the  niceties  of  legislation  or  the  manner  of  inter¬ 
preting  statutes  or  acts  of  the  Legislature ;  but  to  sum  up  the 
■whole  of  the  two  eloquent  addresses  made  by  the  gentlemen  Avho 
have  just  spoken,  they  amount  to  this :  that  either  the  consciences  of 
Catholics  must  be  crushed  and  their  objections  resisted,  or  the  Public 
School  System  must  be  destroyed.  That  is  the  pith  of  both  their 
observations.  They  argue  that  there  must  be  either  one  or  the 
other  of  these  tAVO  results,  and  those  gentlemen  are  inclined  to  the 
course  of  compelling  conscience  to  give  Avay,  they  being  the  judge 
of  our  conciences  which  they  wish  to  overrule ;  so  that  the  Public 
School  Society — and  I  do  not  desire  to  detract  from  it  as  far  as  good 
intentions  are  concerned — shall  continue  to  dispose  of  the  Public 
School  Fund  notwithstanding  our  objections  and  reasoning  on 
AAdiich  they  are  based.  The  gentleman  Avho  last  spoke  appeared  to 
imagine  that  I  Avished  the  exclusion  of  the  Protestant  Bible,  and 
that,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Catholics,  I  laid  myself  open  to  the 


144 


AECnniSHOP  HtlGHES’  SECOND  SPEECH 


charge  of  enmity  to  the  word  of  God ;  but  I  desire  nothing  of  the 
sort.  I  would  leave  the  Protestant  Bible  for  those  who  reverence 
it;  but  for  myself,  it  has  not  my  confidence.  Another  objection 
which  he  made  was  of  a  personal  character  to  myself;  biit  while 
that  gentleman  started  with  the  beautiful  rule  of  charity  to  others, 
and  with  a  lecture  on  the  propriety  of  retaining  our  station  in  life, 
and  the  impropriety  of  the  public  appeals  of  which  he  was  pleased 
to  speak,  I  regret  that  his  practice  was  not  in  accordance  with  his 
precept — and  that  while  he  was  lecturing  me  on  the  subject,  he  him¬ 
self  shoiild  have  gone  beyond  anything  which  proper  discussion 
called  for.  If  I  attended  those  meetings,  it  was  because  I  felt  the 
evil  of  the  present  system  as  regards  us — not  its  evils  as  regards 
others ;  and  we  must  be  permitted  to  be  the  judges  of  our  own 
duties,  and  to  see  for  ourselves,  while  we  accord  to  others  the  same 
right  for  themselves.  I  beg  to  disclaim  any  intention  to  overrule 
this  community,  or  to  bring  anything  from  Rome,  except  to  those 
who  believe  in  its  spiritual  authority.  Consequently,  all  those  re¬ 
marks  of  that  gentleman  have  been  out  of  place ;  and  for  the  rest,  I 
conceive  the  true  point  has  not  been  touched.  Not  one  of  our 
objections  or  scruples  of  conscience  has  he  undertaken  to  analyze, 
nor  the  grounds  on  which  they  exist.  When  I  gave  those  reasons 
for  our  objections,  I  thought  some  argument  would  have  been  urged 
fairly  against  them;  but  the  only  end  the  gentleman  appears  to  have 
in  view,  is  the  preservation  of  the  School  Society,  and  to  maintain 
that  they  have  a  patent  right  to  the  office.  That,  I  know,  is  his 
object;  but  I  did  not  expect  to  hear  any. man  construing  the  law  as 
that  its  advantages  cannot  reach  us  unless  we  lay  down  and  sacrifice 
our  consciences  at  the  threshold.  I  have  spoken  for  myself,  and  I 
have  disclaimed  all  high-handed  objects ;  but  the  gentleman  insists, 
notwithstanding  the  2!iledge  which  we  have  given,  that,  in  spite  of 
all,  we  shall  teach  our  religion.  I  disclaim  such  intentions,  and  I  do 
not  think  it  fair  in  that  gentleman  to  impute  intentions  which  we 
disclaim.  The  gentleman  has  drawn  a  beautiful  picture  of  society 
if  all  could  live  in  harmony  (I  would  it  could  be  reduced  to  prac¬ 
tice),  whether  born  in  foreign  parts  or  in  this  country.  But  if  all 
coiild  be  brought  up  together — if  all  could  associate  in  such  a  state 
without  prejudice  to  the  public  welfare,  while  the  Protestants  use 
such  books  as  those  to  which  we  object,  it  could  only  be  by  the 
Catholic  concealing  his  religion ;  for  if  he  owns  it  he  will  be  called 
a  “  Papist.”  The  gentleman  says  that  one  of  the  books  to  which 
we  object  is  not  a  text-book  used  in  schools;  but,  if  not,  it  is  one 
of  the  books  placed  in  the  library  to  which  I  do  not  say  loe  con¬ 
tribute  more  than  others ;  but  it  is  supported  at  the  public  expense, 
to  which  Catholics  contribute  as  well  as  others.  I  will  read  you 
one  passage  and  leave  you  to  judge  for  yourselves  what  will  be  its 
effects  on  the  minds  of  our  children.  The  work  is  entitled  “  The 
Irish  Heart,”  and  the  author,  on  page  24,  is  describing  an  Irish 
Catholic,  and  he  says :  “  As  for  old  Phelim  Maghee,  he  was  of  no 
particular  religion.” 


BEFOBE  THE  CITY  COTJKCIL, 


145 


And  how  do  the  gentlemen  describe  the  Public  Schools,  but  as 
schools  of  religion  and  no  religion !  They  say  they  give  religious 
instruction ;  but  again  they  say  it  is  not  religion,  for  it  does  not 
vitiate  their  claim. 

“As  for  old  Phelim  Magliee,  he  was  of  no  particular  religion.” 

“  When  Phelim  had  laid  up  a  good  stock  of  sins,  he  now  and  then  went  over  to 
Kiilarney,  of  a  Sabbath  morning,  and  got  relaaf  by  confissing  them  out  o’  the  way, 
as  he  used  to  express  it,  and  sealed  up  his  soul  with  a  wafers 

That  is  the  term  they  apjoly  to  our  doctrine  of  transubstantiation ; 
and  they  want  us  to  associate  and  to  enjoy  everything  in  harmony 
when  they  thus  assail  our  religious  right. 

“ - and  return  quite  invigorated  for  the  perpetration  of  new  offences.” 

Now,  suppose  Catholic  children  hear  this  in  the  company  of  their 
Protestant  associates  !  They  will  be  subject  to  the  ridicule  of  their 
companions,  and  the  consequence  will  be  that  their  domestic  and 
religious  attachments  will  become  weakened,  they  become  ashamed 
of  their  religion,  and  they  will  grow  up  Nothingarians. 

But  again,  on  page  120,  when  speaking  of  intemperance,  we  find 
the  following : 

“  It  is  more  probable,  however,  a  part  of  the  papal  system.” 

And  this,  notwithstanding  all  that  Father  Mathew  has  done. 

“  For,  when  drunkenness  shall  have  been  done  away,  and  with  it,  that  just  re¬ 
lative  proportion  of  all  indolence,  ignorance,  crime,  misery,  and  superstition,  of 
which  it  is  the  putative  parent ;  then  tn;ly  a  much  smaller  portion  of  mankind 
may  be  expected  to  follow  the  dark  lantern  of  the  Romish  religion.” 

“  That  religion  is  most  likely  to  find  professors  among  the  frivolous  and  the 
wicked,  which  by  a  species  of  ecclesiastical  legerdemain  can  persuade  the  sinner 
that  he  is  going  to  heaven,  when  he  is  going  directly  to  hell.  By  a  refined  and 
complicated  system  of  Jesuitry,  and  prelatical  juggling,  the  papal  see  has  obtained 
its  present  extensive  influence  through  the  world.” 

And,  unless  we  send  our  children  to  imbibe  these  lessons,  we  are 
going  to  overturn  the  system !  But  is  that  the  true  conclusion  to 
which  the  gentlemen  should  come,  from  our  petition  ?  Is  that  rea¬ 
soning  from  facts  and  the  evidence  before  their  eyes?  I  have 
promised  not  to  detain  the  Board,  and  therefore  I  would  merely 
say,  if  I  have  attended  those  meetings,  it  was  not  with  the  views  the 
gentleman  has  imputed  to  me,  nor  to  distinguish  myself  as  has  been 
insinuated.  I  have  taken  good  care  to  banish  politics  from  those 
meetings,  and  if  I  have  mentioned  the  number  of  Catholics,  or  of 
their  children,  it  was  to  show  how  far  this  system  falls  short  of  the 
end  which  the  Legislature  has  in  view.  I  disclaim  utterly  and 
entirely  the  intention  imputed  to  me  by  the  gentleman,  but  I  will  not 
longer  detain  the  Board. 

Mr.  Mott,  one  of  the  Public  School  Trustees,  with  the  permission 
of  the  Board,  explained  the  manner  in  which  the  book  which  the 
Right  Rev.  Prelate  had  last  alluded  to,  had  found  its  way  into  the 
schools.  It  was  one  of  a  series  of  tales  published  by  the  Temperance 
Society ;  and  when  a  committee  was  appointed  for  filling  the  library, 


146 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


their  attention  was  called  to  the  first  number  of  the  series ;  they 
had  read  two  or  three  of  them  which  had  come  from  the  press,  and 
as  they  appeared  adapted  to  the  reading  of  children,  the  committee 
admitted  them,  and  by  some  mistake  it  was  supposed  that  all  the 
other  volumes  of  the  same  series  and  under  the  same  title  were 
ordered  too,  and  they  were  sent  in  as  they  were  issued  from  the 
press  after  that  period,  and  in  this  way  the  book  in  question  had 
crept  in.  But  this  being  discovered  by  a  Catholic  Trustee,  it  was 
withdrawn,  and  of  this  the  gentlemen  were  fully  apprised,  and 
therefore  he  asked  if  it  was  generous  or  just  to  quote  that  book, 
under  these  circumstances,  to  strengthen  the  cause  of  the  Catho¬ 
lics. 

The  Eight  Eev.  Bishop  Hughes  assured  the  gentleman  that  he, 
until  that  moment,  had  not  heard  of  the  books  having  been  with¬ 
drawn. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Bond  then  again  rose  to  address  the  Board  as  the 
representative  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  but  as  it  was 
now  10  o’clock,  it  was  proposed  by  one  of  the  aldermen  to  take  a 
recess  until  Friday  afternoon  at  4  o’clock  which  was  agreed  to,  and 
the  Board  adjourned. 

The  Board  re-assembled  at  four  o’clock  on  Friday  the  30th  October, 
1840,  by  adjournment  from  the  previous  day,  but  some  time  elapsed 
before  the  debate  could  be  resumed,  in  consequence  of  the  difficulty 
which  the  gentlemen,  who  took  part  in  the  proceedings,  found  in 
gaining  an  entrance  to  the  Council  Chamber,  through  the  greatly 
increased  crowd  of  persons  who  were  anxious  and  struggling  to  be 
present.  After  the  room  had  been  filled  to  overflowing,  many  hun¬ 
dreds  were  still  excluded  who  desired  admission ;  but  the  room  was 
filled  to  its  utmost  capacity,  even  to  standing  room  in  the  windows, 
and  those  still  crowding  round  the  entrance  door  were  obliged  to 
endure  the  disappointment.  David  Graham,  Esq.,  Alderman  of  the 
Fifteenth  Ward,  presided  on  this  occasion  as  the  locum  tenens  of  the 
President,  Mr.  Alderman  Purdy,  who,  however,  was  present  seated 
with  the  Aldermen.  There  were  also  present  many  distinguished  and 
reverend  gentlemen  of  various  denominations  of  this  city,  besides 
those  who  took  part  in  the  discussion.  Dr.  Brownlee  was  seated 
near  Dr.  Bond  during  that  gentleman’s  speech,  but  he  did  not  at¬ 
tempt  to  address  the  Board.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Pise,  and  other  rever¬ 
end  gentlemen  of  the  Catholic  Church,  were  seated  with  the  Right 
Rev.  Bishop  Hughes,  and  the  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Power,  and  many 
jireachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  orator  by  whom  they  were  represented.  When  all  the  gen¬ 
tlemen  were  seated,  the  President  called  upon  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bond, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  proceed  with  the  debate  on 
behalf  of  the  remonstrants  of  that  body.  When  Drs.  Bond,  Knox, 
Reese  and  Bangs  had  addressed  the  Council,  Dr.  Spring,  of  the  Bi’ick 
Presbyterian  Church  arose,  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  said  : 
“  The  gentleman  has  sought  to  prove  that  the  present  system  leads  to 
infidelity.  Now,  sir,  lei  no  man  think  it  strange  that  I  should  prefer  inji^ 


BEFOEE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


14-7 


delHtj  to  Catholicism.  Even  a  mind  as  acute  as  Voltaire’s  came  to 
the  conclusion  that,  if  there  was  no  alteiuiative  between  infidelity 
and  the  dogmas  of  the  Catholic  Church,  he  should  choose  infidelity. 
I  would  choose,  sir,  in  similar  circumstances,  to  be  an  infidel  to-morrov}^ 
At  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Spring’s  harangue,  the  President  called 
upon  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Hughes  to  conclude  the  debate,  who  im- 
meditately  arose  to  reply  to  the  arguments  of  all  the  gentlemeTi 
who  had  been  heard  on  the  subject,  and  spoke  as  follows  : 

Mr.  President,  it  would  require  a  mind  of  much  greater  capacity 
than  mine  to  arrange  and  mature  the  topics,  relevant  or  otherwise^ 
that  have  been  introduced  into  this  discussion,  since  I  had  the  honor 
to  address  you  yesterday.  No  less  than  seven  or  eight  gentlemen 
of  great  ability  have  presented  their  respective  views  on  the  subject, 
aucl  not  only  on  the  subject  in  regard  to  its  intrinsic  merits,  but  on 
subjects  which  they  deemed,  at  least,  collateral,  but  which  I  think 
quite  irrelevant.  The  gentleman  who  last  addressed  you  (Dr. 
Spring)  is  entitled  to  my  acknowledgments  for  the  candor  with 
which  he  expressed  his  sentiments  in  reference  to  it ;  namely,  that 
he  was  opposed  to  it  more  because  it  came  from  Catholics,  than  if 
it  had  been  presented  by  any  other  denomination.  Tliat  gentleman 
is  entitled  to  my  acknowledgment,  and. I  award  it,  if  worthy  of  his 
accejitance.  The  subject — for  it  is  exceedingly  important  that  the 
subject  should  be  kept  in  view — is  one,  as  I  stated  before,  that  is 
very  simple.  We  are  a  portion  of  this  community;  we  desire  to 
be  nothing  greater  than  any  other  portion ;  we  are  not  content  to 
be  made  less.  There  is  nothing,  sir,  in  that  system  of  the  Public 
School  Society  against  which  any  of  the  gentlemen  who  have 
spoken,  either  in  their  individual  capacity  or  as  the  representatives 
of  bodies  of  people,  have  urged  a  single  conscientious  objection, 
and,  of  course,  they  have  no  right  to  complain — they  are  satisfied, 
and,  therefore,  I  am  willing  that  they  should  have  the  system,  but  I 
am  not  willing  that  they  should  press  it  upon  me,  and  for  good 
reason.  And,  sir,  if  this  honorable  body  rejects  the  claim  of  your 
jietitioners,  what  is  the  issue  ?  That  we  are  deprived  of  the  bene¬ 
fits  to  which  we  are  entitled,  and  that  we  are  not  one  iota  worse 
than  we  were  before.  That  is  our  consolation.  But  the  whole 
range  of  the  argument  of  the  gentleman,  who  spoke  last,  was,  to 
show  that  this  Public  School  System  was  got  up  with  the  concur¬ 
rence  of  public  opinion,  and  that  having  been  so  got  up,  it  had 
worked  beautifully,  and  that  gentlemen  who  never  heard  of  con¬ 
scientious  objections  to  it,  because  it  suits  their  views,  deem  it 
wonderful  that  we  can  have  any  conscience  at  all  on  the  subject. 
That  is  the  amount  of  it.  What !  no  ground  for  conscientious  ob¬ 
jection,  when  you  teach  our  children  in  those  schools  that  “  the 
deceitful  Catholics”  burned  John  Huss  at  the  stake,  for  conscience, 
when  evidences  are  numerous  before  you  of  a  more  just  and  a  more 
honorable  character — when  you  might  find  on  the  page  of  history, 
that  in  Catholic  Poland  every  avenue  to  dignity  in  the  state  was 
opened  to  Protestants,  by  the  concurrent  vote  of  eight  Catholic 


148 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


Bishops,  whilst  the  vote  of  any  one  of  them,  according  to  the  con 
stitution  of  the  Polish  Diet,  of  which  they  were  members,  could 
have  prevented  the  law  being  passed — and  what  is  more,  when  the 
lirst  lesson  of  universal  toleration  and  freedom  of  conscience  the 
world  was  ever  called  to  learn,  was  set  by  the  Catholics  of  Mary¬ 
land — I  speak  in  the  presence  of  gentlemen  who  can  contradict  me 
if  they  know  where  to  find  the  authority — and  what  was  this  but 
homage  to  the  majesty  of  conscience,  by  a  Church  which  they  wish 
to  establish  as  a  persecuting  Church.  That  Church,  sir,  which  the 
gentleman  has  come  here  to  prove  justifies  the  murdering  of  here¬ 
tics,  was  the  first  to  teach  a  lesson  which  Protestants  have  been 
slow  to  learn  and  imitate,  but  which  the  religion  they  profess  should 
have  taught  them.  But  not  these  examples  alone  ;  there  are  hun 
dreds  more.  At  this  day  in  Belgium,  where  Protestants  are  in  a 
minority  of  one  to  twelve,  the  state  votes  them  an  equal  portion, 
and  where  their  clergy  are  married,  a  larger  portion,  and  that  with 
the  concurrence  of  the  Council  and  the  Catholic  Bisho2DS.  The 
gentleman  need  not  tell  me  of  Catholicism ;  I  know  it  well ;  and 
what  is  more,  I  know  Protestantism  well ;  and  I  know  the  profes¬ 
sions  of  good  will  of  Protestants  do  not  always  correspond  with 
their  feelings.  But  I  should  like  to  know  whether  or.not  in  Protest¬ 
antism  they  find  authority  for  persecuting  to  the  knife,  not  Catho¬ 
lics  alone,  but  each  other,  even  after  they  have  proclaimed  the  right 
of  every  man  to  think  for  himself.  With  good  reason,  sir,  do  I 
contend  for  conscience,  but  they  may  think  a  Catholic  has  no  right 
to  have  a  conscience  at  all.  They  may  think  because  this  system  is 
beautiful  in  their  view,  that  this  i^retension  to  conscience  on  the 
part  of  Catholics  ought  to  be  stifled,  as  a  thing  not  to  be  admitted 
at  all.  But  that  will  not  do.  Man  in  this  country  has  a  right  to 
the  exercise  of  conscience,  and  the  man  that  should  raise  himself  up 
against  it  will  find  that  he  has  raised  himself  up  against  a  tremen¬ 
dous  opponent.  Now,  what  is  it  we  ask?  You  have  heard  from 
beginning  to  end  the  arguments  on  this  occasion,  and  though  I  may 
not  follow  the  wanderings  of  this  discussion  through  all  its  minute 
parts,  if  I  pass  over  any  part,  be  assured  it  is  not  from  any  desire 
to  avoid,  or  any  inability  to  refute  what  has  been  said  against  us. 
I  may  j^ass  over  many  points,  but  I  will  not  pass  over  any  great 
principle,  and  you  have,  no  doubt,  given  so  much  attention  to  the 
subject  as  to  enable  you,  if  I  should  not  recapitulate  the  whole,  to 
decide  justly.  It  has  been  urged,  that  if  you  give  Catholics  that 
which  they  now  ask,  you  will  give  them  benefits  which  will  elevate 
them  above  others  ;  but,  I  contend  most  sincerely,  and  most  consci¬ 
entiously,  that  we  have  no  such  idea ;  and  when  you  shall  have 
granted  the  portion  we  claim,  if  you  should  be  pleased  to  grant  it, 
I  conceive  then,  and  not  before,  shall  we  be  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  in’otection,  and  not  privilege,  to  which  we  are  entitled.  That  is 
my  view^  of  the  subject;  but,  I  have  been  astonished  to  perceive 
the  course  of  argument  of  the  gentlemen  who  oppose  our  claim, 
generally  speaking.  What  it  is  they  contend  for  I  cannot  deter- 


BEFOKK  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


140 


mine ;  but,  it  seems  to  be  the  preservation  of  the  existing  system. 
They  were  among  the  first  to  disclaim  the  doctrine  that  the  end 
justifies  the  means,  and  if  in  attaining  their  end  they  find  they  can 
not  reach  it  without  injustice,  then  as  conscientious  and  high-mind¬ 
ed  men,  they  should  have  jDaused  by  the  way,  and  have  ascertained 
whether  the  means  were  worthy  of  them  and  of  our  glorious 
country.  Yet,  sir,  they  have  generally  overlooked  this,  and  it  is 
no  new  thing  to  find  that  they  have  labored  to  promote  the  benefit 
of  their  own  society,  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  rights  of  others.  Sir, 
it  is  the  glory  of  this  country  that  when  it  is  found  that  a  wrong 
exists,  there  is  a  power,  an  irresistible  power,  to  correct  the  wrong. 
They  have  represented  us  as  contending  to  bring  the  Catholic 
Scriptures  into  the  Public  Schools.  This  is  not  true ;  but,  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  refer  more  particularly  to  this  by  and  by.  They 
have  represented  us  as  enemies  to  the  Protestant  Scriptures  “  with¬ 
out  note  and  comment,”  and  on  this  subject  I  know  not  whether 
their  intention  was  to  make  an  impression  on  your  honorable  body, 
or  to  elicit  a  sympathetic  echo  elsewhere ;  but,  whatever  their  ob¬ 
ject  was,  they  have  represented  that  even  here  Catholics  have  not 
concealed  their  enmity  to  the  Scriptures.  Now,  if  I  had  asked  this 
honorable  Bo%i’d  to  exclude  the  Protestant  Scriptures  from  the 
schools,  then  there  might  have  been  some  coloring  for  the  current 
calumny.  But  I  have  not  done  so.  I  say,  gentlemen  of  every  de¬ 
nomination,  keep  the  scriptures  you  reverence,  but  do  not  force  on 
me  that  which  my  conscience  tells  me  is  wrong.  I  may  be  wrong, 
as  you  may  be  ;  and  as  you  exercise  your  judgment,  be  pleased  to 
allow  the  same  privilege  to  a  fellow  being,  who  must  appear  before 
our  common  God  and  answer  for  the  exercise  of  it.  I  wish  to  do 
nothing  like  what  is  charged  upon  me — that  is  not  the  purpose  for 
which  we  petition  this  honorable  Board,  in  the  name  of  the  commu¬ 
nity  to  which  I  belong  ;  I  appear  here  for  other  objects,  and  if  our 
petition  be  granted  our  schools  may  be  placed  under  the  supervi¬ 
sion  of  the  public  authorities,  or  even  of  commissioners,  to  be  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  Public  School  Society ;  they  may  be  put  under  the 
same  supervision  as  the  existing  schools,  to  see  that  none  of  those 
phantoms,  nor  any  grounds  for  those  suspicions  which  are  as  un¬ 
charitable  as  unfounded,  can  have  existence  in  reality.  There  is, 
then,  but  one  simple  question — will  you  compel  us  to  pay  a  tax 
from  which  we  can  receive  no  benefit,  and  to  frequent  schools  which 
injure  and  destroy  our  religious  rights  in  the  minds  of  our  children, 
and  of  which  in  our  consciences  we  cannot  approve  ?  That  is  the 
simple  question.  Or,  will  you  appoint  some  other  system,  or  will 
you  leave  the  children  of  our  denomination  to  grow  up  in  that  state 
of  ignorance  which  the  School  Society  has  expressed  its  desire  to 
save  them  from  ?  Or  shall  the  constable  be  employed,  as  one  rever¬ 
end  gentleman  seems  to  recommend  (Dr.  Bangs),  or  some  public 
officer  to  catch  them  and  send  them  to  school?  For,  from  this  mo¬ 
ment,  in  consequence  of  the  language  used,  and  the  insulting  pas¬ 
sages  which  those  books  contain.  Catholic  parents  wiU  not  send 


150 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SEC02fD  SPEECH 


their  children  there,  and  any  attemjits  to  enforce  attendance  would 
meet  with  vigorous  resistance  from  them.  I  have  now  presented 
what  is,  in  reality,  the  simple  issue  ;  it  is  no  matter  whether  we  be¬ 
lieve  right  or  not,  for  neither  the  Catholic  nor  the  Protestant  re¬ 
ligion  is  on  trial  here ;  and  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  gentleman 
who  rejiresents  the  Methodist  Church  has  taken  so  much  pains  to 
distil  through  the  minds  of  this  meeting,  a  mass  of  jirejudice  which 
it  will  take  several  hours,  but  at  the  same  time  very  little  beside,  for 
me  to  refute  and  scatter  to  the  winds.  I  shall,  perhaps,  not  dwell 
long  on  that  part,  because  I  judge  it  is  irrelevant  to  the  case  in  hand, 
but  still  I  shall  feel  authorized  to  trespass  on  the  patience  of  the 
meeting  a  short  time,  though  but  a  short  time,  to  remove  the  im¬ 
proper  prejudice  which  may  have  been  created. 

He  says  that  the  people  have  a  right  to  interfere  and  to  give  to 
the  children  of  the  State  an  intellectual  education,  that  this  must  be 
carried  out  in  some  form  or  other,  and  that  this  system  is  as  little 
objectionable  as  any  that  could  be  presented.  That  may  be;  I  do 
not  dispute  the  possibility  of  it,  because  it  is  unimportant ;  but  if 
he  did  mean  to  contend  that  that  system  which  has  been  once  sanc¬ 
tioned  must  continue  to  be  sanctioned,  although  its  sanction  was 
merely  by  the  tacit  consent  of  the  different  denoininations,  and 
although  it  should  become  violative  of  the  religious  rights  of  any, 
then  he  goes  beyond  the  limits  which  even  the  Constitution  of  the 
land  has  made  sacred.  I  have  been  represented  as  endeavoring  to 
create  excitement  on  this  subject.  To  that  I  shall  refer  imme¬ 
diately  ;  but  I  may  here  refer  to  my  objection  to  the  existing  sys¬ 
tem,  on  the  ground  that  it  has  a  tendency  to  infidelity,  and  may 
observe  that  I  know  clergymen  of  other  denominations  who  are 
also  opposed  to  it  on  the  ground  of  its  infidel  tendency^.  There  are 
many  who  have  the  conviction  that  it  tends  to  infidelity,  and  who 
know  that  the  preventive  referred  to  is  not  equal  to  stem  the  ten¬ 
dency  to  infidelity  which  does  exist. 

The  first  gentleman  who  spoke,  and  he  spoke  with  a  frankness 
and  sincerity  for  which  I  give  him  credit,  contended — and  when  I 
answer  his  objection,  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  speaking  to  all  that 
took  up  that  objection — and  it  was  urged  more  or  less  by  the  whole — 
that  it  was  inconsistent  to  charge  upon  the  system  a  tendency  to 
infidelity,  and  then  a  teaching  of  religion,  and  that  this  teaching  was 
anti-catholic.  Now  this  would  be  inconsistent  under  some  circum¬ 
stances  ;  but  the  gentleman  left  out  the  grounds  on  which  that 
charge  was  made,  and  it  will  be  proper,  therefore,  that  I  should 
state  those  grounds.  In  the  document  which  emanated  from  the 
Board  of  Assistants  last  spring,  they  say  that  the  smallest  particle 
of  religion  is  a  disqualification,  and  that  “  religious  instruction  is  no 
part  of  a  common  school  education.”  Now,  was  it  the  intention  of 
your  honorable  body  to  exclude  all  religion?  Was  it  the  intention 
of  the  State  Legislature  ?  Did  any  public  authority  requii  e  that 
the  public  school  education  should  be  winnowed  as  corn  on  a  barn 
floor,  and  all  religion  driven  out  by  the  winds  of  heaven  as  d  aft’  not 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUlSrCIL. 


151 


worthy  to  be  preserved?  Was  there  such  authority?  Who  made 
sucii  a  decision  ?  And  yet  that  very  decision,  I  ask  you,  if  we  are 
not  authorized  to  interpret  as  proof  of  the  charge,  that  the  system 
has  a  tendency  to  infidelity?  For,  banish  religion,  and  infidelity 
alone  remains.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  the  gentlemen  of 
the  Public  School  Society  themselves  repeatedly  stating  that  they 
inculcate  religion,  and  give  religious  impressions ;  and  I  say  it  does 
them  credit ;  for  as  far  as  they  can  they  ought  to  teach  religion. 
It  would  be  better,  if  they  did,  for  those  who  are  satisfied  with 
THEIR  religious  teaching.  This  explanation  will  set  us  right  in  the 
minds  of  your  honorable  body.  It  is  first  said  no  religion  is  taught; 
and  then  it  is  admitted  that  religion  is  inculcated ;  and  next  our 
petition  is  opposed  because  it  is  alleged  that  if  our  prayer  be  granted 
religion  will  be  taught.  What  weight,  then,  is  the  objection  oi"  the 
Public  School  Society  entitled  to,  if  this  be  the  fact  ?  And  where 
is  our  inconsistency  ?  If  there  is  a  dilemma,  to  whom  are  we  in¬ 
debted  for  it  but  to  the  Report  of  the  Board  of  Assistants  on  the 
one  hand,  and  to  the  testimony  of  the  Public  School  Society  on  the 
other.  Let  us  not,  then,  be  charged  with  inconsistency. 

Now,  sir,  I  contend  there  is  infidelity  taught.  I  do  not  mean  in 
its  gross  form ;  but  I  have  found  principles  of  infidelity  in  the 
books — and  one  that  would  pass  current  as  a  very  amiable  book — a 
religious  lesson  which  I  would  not  sufier  a  child  to  read,  over  whom 
I  had  any  influence.  The  lesson  represents  a  father  and  his  son 
going  about  on  Sunday  morning  to  the  difterent  churches,  the  little 
boy  asking  questions  as  they  pass  along  from  one  to  the  other ;  at 
last  the  boy  said  to  his  father — I  may  not  quote  the  words,  but  I 
shall  be  found  right  in  substance — “  What  is  the  reason  there  are  so 
many  different  sects  !  Why  do  not  all  people  agree  to  go  to  the 
same  place,  and  to  worship  God  in  the  same  way !”  “  And  why 

should  it  not  be  so  ?”  replied  the  father.  “  Why  should  they  agree  ? 
Do  not  people  differ  in  other  things  ?  Do  they  not  difier  in  their 
taste  and  their  dress — some  like  their  coats  cut  one  way  and  some 
another — and  do  they  not  differ  in  their  appetites  and  food  ?  and  in 
the  hours  they  keep  and  in  their  diversion?”  Now,  I  ask  if  there 
is  no  infidelity  in  that  ?  I  ask  if  it  is  a  proper  lesson  to  teach  chil¬ 
dren,  that  as  they  have  a  right  to  form  their  own  tastes  for  dress 
and  food,  they  have  the  right  to  judge  for  themselves  in  matters  of 
religion  ?  for,  with  deference  to  the  Public  School  Society,  children 
are  too  young  to  have  such  principles  instilled  into  them.  Let 
them  grow  up,  before  they  are  left  to  exercise  their  judgment  in 
such  weighty  matters ;  at  least,  do  not  teach  Catholic  children  such 
a  lesson  at  so  early  an  age  ;  and,  in  all  I  have  said,  I  desire  to  be 
understood  as  abstaining  most  carefully  from  prescribing  any  rule, 
or  method,  or  book,  for  any  denomination  with  which  I  am  not  con¬ 
nected.  But  for  Catholic  children  I  speak,  and  I  say  it  is  too  early 
for  them  to  judge  for  themselves.  And  is  this  all?  No,  sir;  one 
other  })assage,  and  for  that  there  may  perhaps  be  something  to  be 
said  as  to  its  defence,  because  it  i/j  from  the  pen  of  an  eminent 


152 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


Protestant  divine,  the  Bishop  of  London.  I  presume  the  Bishop  of 
London,  when  he  wrote  that  passage,  must  have  been  writing  on 
some  subject  connected  with  infidelity  ;  he  must  have  been  waiting 
against  infidelity,  and  indulging  in  a  range  of  argument  which  might 
be  proper  for  such  a  subject,  but  out  of  place  in  the  hands  of  com¬ 
mon-school  children.  What  was  that  passage  ?  Why,  it  is  one 
which  represents  the  Divine  Bedeemer  as  a  man  of  respectable 
talents. 

Mr.  Ketchum  rose,  and  intimated  his  doubt  of  such  a  passage 
being  in  the  books. 

The  Right  Rev.  Prelate  continued.  I  have  read  it  in  their 
books,  but  the  Trustees  have  recalled  them.  I  hope  not  for  the 
purpose  of  depriving  me  of  the  ojiportunity  of  quoting  the  page. 
Such  a  lesson  is  now  to  be  found  in  one  of  the  books,  which  repre¬ 
sents  the  Divine  Redeemer  as  showing  uncommon  quickness  of  pen¬ 
etration  and  sagacity.  I  ask  whether  such  a  lesson  is  a  proper  one 
for  children,  and  whether  such  is  the  instruction  to  be  given  to  them 
of  the  Redeemer  of  the  ivorld  ?  The  gentleman  who  first  spoke, 
said  it  was  not  in  reality  religion  that  was  taught,  but  mere  moral¬ 
ity  that  was  inculcated — the  propriety  of  telling  the  truth  and  of 
fulfilling  all  moral  duties.  If  this  be  true,  it  is  still  strange  that  the 
School  Society  should  prefer  the  word  “  religions.”  He  did  not 
deny  that  it  was  a  kind  of  religion,  and  that  the  precepts  of 
the  Decalogue  were  inculcated,  and  while  the  Public  School  Society 
admit  that  religion  is  inculcated  —  and  the  legal  gentleman,  their 
representative,  does  not  disclaim  it,  so  far  as  it  forms  the  ground¬ 
work  of  a  good  moral  character — it  may  be  taken  as  admitted. 
And  now,  if  they  teach  religion,  let  us  know  what  it  is  to  be.  Let 
them  not  delegate  to  the  teachers,  some  of  whom  may  teach  one 
religion,  some  another,  the  authority  or  permission  to  make  “  reli¬ 
gious  impressions,”  to  give  “  religious  instruction,”  to  give  a  “  right 
direction  to  the  mind  of  youth,”  and  all  the  other  phrases  which  we 
find  in  their  documents.  Row,  on  the  subject  of  religion  and  morals, 
would  they  teach  morals  without  religion,  which  I  conceive  will  be 
found  as  visionary  as  castle-building  in  the  air.  Mr.  Ketchum  says 
they  are  taught  not  to  lie,  but  without  religion  he  furnishes  no  mo¬ 
tive  for  not  lying.  If  a  man  tells  me  not  to  lie,  when  it  is  my  interest 
to  lie,  I,  as  a  rational  being,  w^ant  a  motive  for  telling  the  truth. 
My  love  of  gain  tells  me  if  I  lie,  and  lie  successfully,  it  will  add  to  my 
fortune ;  and  if  I  am  told  to  abstain  from  lying,  at  the  risk  of  my 
fortune,  let  me  have  a  reason.  But  if  I  am  told  there  is  God  to 
whom  I  am  accountable,  that  is  a  motive ;  but,  then,  it  is  a  teaching 
of  religion.  Yes,  sir,  when  I  am  told  there  is  a  God,  I  am  taught 
religion ;  and  therefore  I  am  astonished  that  the  Report  which  has 
gone  forth  from  the  other  Board  shonld  declare  that  the  smallest 
teaching  of  religion  vitiates  the  claim.  You  may  as  well  think  to 
build  an  edifice  without  a  foundation,  as  to  pretend  to  produce 
moral  efiects  without  religious  belief. 

There  may  not  be  the  details  of  religion,  but  there  must  be  the 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


153 


principle,  to  a  certain  extent,  otherwise  you  cannot  lay  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  good  morals  for  men.  Now,  sir,  I  will  show  you  that  Mr. 
Stephen  Girard,  of  Philadelphia,  who  had  no  religious  belief  what¬ 
ever,  in  his  will,  by  which  he  bequeathed  large  sums  of  mOney  for 
the  purpose  of  procuring  great  and  material  benefits  to  society — but 
which  has  been  looked  upon  by  many  Christians,  of  every  denomi¬ 
nation,  in  Philadelphia,  rather  as  a  curse  than  a  blessing — even  he 
speaks  of  morality  without  religion  nearly  as  the  Public  School 
Society  does.  He  says : 

“  Secondly,  I  enjoin  and  require  that  no  ecclesiastic,  missionary,  or  minister,  of 
any  sect  whatsoever,  shall  ever  hold  or  exercise  any  station  or  duty  whatsoever 
in  the  said  College ;  nor  shall  any  such  person  ever  be  admitted  for  any  purpose, 
or  as  a  visitor,  within  the  premises  appropriated  to  the  purposes  of  the  said  Col¬ 
lege.  In  making  this  restriction,  I  do  not  mean  to  cast  any  reflection  upon  any 
sect  or  person  whatever ;  but,  as  there  is  such  a  multitude  of  sects,  and  such  a 
diversity  of  opinion  amongst  them,  I  desire  to  keep  the  tender  minds  of  the  orplians 
who  are  to  derive  advantage  from  this  bequest  free  from  the  excitement  which 
clashing  doctrines  and  sectarian  controversy  are  so  apt  to  produce.  My  desire  is, 
that  all  the  insti’uctors  and  teachers  in  the  College  shall  take  pains  to  instill  into 
the  minds  of  the  scholars  the  purest  principles  of  imorality,  so  that  on  their  en¬ 
trance  into  active  life  they  may,  from  inclination  and  habit,  evince  benevolence 
towards  their  fellow- creatures,  and  a  love  of  truth,  sobriety,  and  industry,  adopt¬ 
ing  at  the  same  time  such  religious  tenets  as  their  matured  reason  may  enable 
them  to  prefer.” 


He  left  two  millions  of  dollars  to  tbe  city  of  Philadelphia,  pro¬ 
vided  that  poor  orphans  should  be  brought  up  to  respect  infidelity, 
lie  did  not  say  a  word  against  religion,  but  he  took  care  to  stand 
by,  not  personally,  but  by  his  executors,  in  his  will,  to  prevent  its 
precepts  being  inculcated  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  the  depen¬ 
dents  on  his  bounty.  They  were  to  have  the  purest  principles  of 
morals  instilled  into  their  minds ;  but  the  attempt,  is  vain  when  re¬ 
ligion  is  not  placed  as  the  foundation  of  morals. 

He,  like  the  Public  School  Society,  stands  by  to  see  that  the  pot¬ 
ter  shall  give  no  form  to  the  vase,  till  the  clay  grows  stiff  and  hard¬ 
ened.  Then  it  will  be  too  late. 

The  gentlemen  also  made  objection  to  our  schools,  because,  he 
said,  they  were  in  our  churches.  The  fact  is,  we  were  obliged  to 
provide  them  where  we  could,  and  our  means  would  iiermit ;  and 
there  are  some  of  them  in  the  basement  of  our  churches.  And  he 
conceived  it  impossible  to  keep  them  from  sectarian  influence,  be¬ 
cause  the  children  would  be  within  hearing  of  the  chant  of  divine 
service ;  as  though  sectarianism  depended  on  geographical  distances 
from  churcli.  But  this  could  not  have  been  a  valid  objection,  be¬ 
cause  the  Public  School  Society  has  had  not  only  schools  under 
churches,  but  in  the  session  rooms  of  churches. 

I  shall  refer  now  to  the  learned  gentlemen  who  followed  him  (Mr. 
Ketchum),  and  I  can  only  say  that  this  gentleman,  with  a  great  deal 
of  experience  in  this  particular  question,  really  seems  to  me  to  con¬ 
firm  all  I  say  on  the  ground  we  have  taken.  I  know  he  lectured  me 
pretty  roundly  on  the  subject  of  attending  the  meetings  held  under 


154 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


St.  James’  church.  I  know  he  did  more  for  me  than  the  Pope :  the 
Pojie  “  mitred”  me  hut  once,  but  lie  did  so  three  or  four  times  dur¬ 
ing  the  course  of  his  address.  He  read  me  a  homily  on  the  duties 
of  station  ;  and  he  so  far  forgot  his  country  and  her  principles,  as  to 
call  it  a  “  descent”  on  my  part,  when  I  mingled  in  a  popular  meet¬ 
ing  of  freemen.  But  it  was  no  descent ;  and  I  hope  the  time  will 
never  come  when  it  will  be  deemed  a  descent  for  a  man  in  office  to 
mingle  with  his  fellow-citizens  when  convened  for  legitimate  and 
honorable  purposes. 

But  from  his  speech  it  would  appear,  that  his  experience  has  been 
obtained  by  the  discharge  of  the  duty  of  standing  advocate  of  de¬ 
nial  ;  and  yet,  with  all  his  experience  and  opportunities  of  research, 
his  inability  to  overturn  our  grounds  confirms  me  in  the  conviction 
that  they  are  not  to  be  removed,  even  by  the  aid  of  splendid  talents  ; 
for  that  speech,  like  most  others,  went  on  the  false  issue  that  we 
want  privileges.  But  we  want  no  privilege.  That  speech,  like  the 
speech  from  the  throne,  might  have  been  the  speech  of  years  past, 
and  might  have  been  stereotyped  ;  for  its  only  novelty,  which  proved 
to  me  that  it  was  not  all  the  work  of  antiquity,  was  the  part  which 
appertained  to  myself.  And  not  only  that,  but  I  have  to  say,  that 
when  I  came  into  this  hall — and  it  is  the  first  time  I  ever  stood  in 
an  assembly  of  this  description — I  felt  that  I  Avas  throAvn  on  the 
hospitality  of  the  jjrofessional  gentleman ;  and  I  think  if  I  and  that 
gentleman  could  have  exchanged  places,  I  should  not  have  looked 
so  hard  at  him  as  he  did  at  me.  In  fact,  throughout  that  speech  he, 
with  peculiar  emphasis,  and  a  manner  which  he  may,  perhaps,  have 
acquired  in  his  practice  in  courts  of  laAV,  fixed  upon  me  a  steady 
gaze — and  he  has  no  ordinary  countenance — and  addressed  me  so 
solemnly,  that  I  really  expected  every  moment  he  -would  forget  him¬ 
self,  and  say  “the  prisoner  at  the  bar.”  (Laughter.)  He  did  not, 
however.  He  passed  that  over ;  and  whilst  I  recognize  and  respect 
the  “  human  face  divine,”  because  God  made  it  to  look  upward,  I  may 
here  observe,  that  it  has  no  poAver  to  frighten  me,  eA^en  if  it  would 
be  terrible  ;  and  therefore  I  was  not  at  all  disturbed  by  the  hard 
looks  which  he  gave  me.  The  gentleman  Avill  pardon  me,  I  hope,  in 
this,  for  it  is  natural  enough,  after  what  has  been  said-7-though  I 
know  it  Avas  said  in  good  humor,  to  claim  the  privilege  to  retort. 

Well,  sir,  this  Avas  not  all,  but  he  told  us  something  about  going 
to  the  stake.  He  Avas  sure,  if  any  of  the  public  money  was  Amted  to 
the  denomination  of  a  reverend  gentleman,  whose  name  I  will  not 
mention,  the  Catholics  Avould  go  to  the  stake.  Noav,  sir,  Ave  haA^e 
no  intention  to  do  so.  We  knoAV  the  public  money  does  go  to  the 
support  of  religion ;  it  goes  to  the  support  of  chaplaincies,  theologi¬ 
cal  seminaries,  uniAmrsities,  and  chaplains  of  institutions  whose  ap¬ 
pointments  are  permanent ;  and  be  it  remembered,  that  one  of  the 
first  lectures  deliA-ered  in  one  institution,  the  UniAmrsity  of  this  city, 
Avhich  was  aided  from  the  public  funds,  was  on  the  anti-republican 
tendency  of  Popery.  And  yet  Ave  did  not  go  to  the  stake  for  that ; 
and  Avhy  ?  Because,  though  our  portion  of  taxation  mingles  with 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


155 


the  rest,  we  have  no  objections  to  the  use  of  it  which  the  law  pre¬ 
scribes,  so  long  as  no  inalienable  rights  of  our  own  are  involved  in 
the  sacrifice. 

But,  again,  he  said,  if  any  of  the  money  was  appropriated  to  the 
Catholic  religion,  Protestants  would  go  to  the  stake.  I  will  not 
say  whether  Protestants  are  so  exclusive  ;  while  we  submit  to  taxa¬ 
tion  for  Protestant  purposes,  without  going  to  the  stake,  whether, 
if  we  participate,  they  will  go  to  the  stake,  is  not  for  me  to  say. 

Then  he  came  to  the  Protestant  Bible,  “  without  note  or  comment;” 
and  “  it  was  hard  for  him  to  part  with  that  translated  Bible.”  He 
stood  by  it,  and  repeated  that  “  it  was  hard  to  give  up  the  Bible,” 
just  as  if  I  had  said  one  word  against  it ;  and  as  if  I  was  about  lo 
bring  the  Pope  to  banish  it  out  of  the  Protestant  world,  or  wished 
to  deprive  any  man  who  venerates  it  of  any  use  he  may  think  jiroper 
to  make  of  it.  And  there,  again,  he  looked  so  much  as  if  he  were 
in  earnest,  that,  at  one  time,  I  thought  he  was  actually  about  to  rush 
to  the  “  stake.”  But  there  was  no  stake  there  to  go  to,  except  that 
which  he  holds  in  the  exchequer  of  the  Public  School  Society.  It  is 
a  most  comfortable  way  of  going  to  martyrdom. 

Sir,  the  gentleman  taunted  me  for  having  .attended  the  public 
meetings  of  Catholics  on  this  subject,  and  he  imputed  the  prejudice 
which  exists  against  the  Public  School  system  to  the  observations  1 
have  made,  as  though  it  were  of  my  creation.  In  answer  to  that  I 
may  state,  Avhat  has  been  the  fact  for  years,  that  Catholics  have  been 
struggling  to  have  schools,  and  to  the  extent  of  their  means  we 
have  them ;  and  what  is  the  reason  ?  Do  you  suppose  that  we 
should  impose  additional  burdens  upon  ourselves,  if  we  were  sat¬ 
isfied  with  those  Public  Schools?  Do  you  suppose  we  should 
have  paid  for  our  bread  a  second  time,  if  that  which  these  schools 
ofiered  had  not,  in  our  opinion,  been  turned  to  a  stone?  No,  the 
existence  of  our  own  schools  proves  that  I  have  not  excited  the 
prejudice ;  but  still  it  is  at  all  times  my  duty  to  warn  my  people 
against  that  which  is  destructive  or  violative  to  the  religion  they 
profess ;  and  if  they  abandon  their  religion  they  are  free ;  but  so 
long  as  they  are  attached  to  our  religion,  it  is  my  duty,  as  their 
pastor,  as  the  faithful  guardian  of  their  principles  and  morals,  to 
w.a'rn  them  when  there  is  danger  of  imbibing  poison  instead  of  whole¬ 
some  food.  That  is  the  reason  ;  and  I  am  sorry  that  he  has  not 
found  a  motive  less  unworthy  of  me  than  that  he  has  been  pleased 
to  assign. 

Then — and  I  may  as  well  take  up  the  question  now  as  elsewhere — 
it  has  been  said  that  it  is  conceived  to  be  an  inconsistency  in  our 
argument,  that  we  object  to  the  Public  Schools  because  religion  is 
taught  in  them,  and  yet,  in  the  schools  which  we  propose  to  estab¬ 
lish,  or  rather,  which  we  have  established,  but  for  which  we  now 
plead,  we  profess  to  teach  no  sectarianism ;  and  the  question  arises, 
“  if  you  are  opposed  to  religion  in  these  schools  because  it  is  secta¬ 
rianism,  how  can  you  teach  religion  in  your  schools,  and  yet  your 
schools  not  be  sectarian  ?”  This  is  the  position  in  which  they  place 


156 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


US ;  and  in  answer  I  have  to  state,  that,  in  the  first  place,  we  do  not 
intend  to  teach  religion.  We  shall  he  willing  that  they  shall  be 
placed  under  the  same  inspection  that  the  Public  Schools  are  now ; 
and  if  it  should  be  found  that  religion  is  taught,  we  will  be  willing 
that  you  shall  cut  them  olf.  You  shall  be  the  judges.  You  may  see 
that  the  law  is  complied  with,  and  if  we  violate  it,  let  us  be  deprived 
of  the  benefits  for  which  the  conditions  were  prescribed.  But  there 
is  neutral  ground  on  which  our  children  may  learn  to  read  and 
cipher.  If  they  read,  it  must  be  something  that  is  written  ;  words 
are  signs  of  ideas,  and  in  the  course  of  their  instruction  they  may 
be  made  so  to  shape  their  studies  as  to  loathe  Catholicism,  without 
learning  any  other  religion.  And  this  could  be  produced,  not  alone 
in  reference  to  Catholics,  but  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Unitarians, 
or  any  other.  They  might  find  that  their  children  disregard  their 
own  religion,  while  they  are  not  taught  any  other.  Sujipose  the 
Presbyterians,  or  any  other  denomination,  were  in  the  minority,  and 
Catholics  were  numerically  what  Protestants  are  now,  and  therefore 
were  able  to  decide  what  lessons  their  children  should  read  in  these 
schools,  I  ask  you  if  the  gentleman  would  not  conceive  he  had  rea¬ 
sonable  objections,  if  they  had  forced  upon  them  a  system  of  educa¬ 
tion  which  teaches  that  their  denomination,  past,  present,  and  td 
come,  was  deceitful?  Now,  take  up  these  books,  which  teach  all 
that  is  infamous  in  our  history  ;  which  teach  our  children  about  the 
“  execution  of  Cranmer,”  the  “burning  of  Huss,”  and  “the  character 
of  Luther.”  If  such  a  practice  were  reversed,  what  would  he  do  ? 

Now,  ill  our  schools,  I  would  teach  them  ;  I  would  give  our  chil¬ 
dren  lessons  for  exercise  in  reading,  that  should  teach  them  that 
w'hen  the  young  tree  of  American  liberty  was  planted,  it  was  wintered 
with  Catholic  blood,  and  that  therefore  we  have  as  much  right  to 
everything  common  in  this  country  as  others.  I  should  teach  them 
that  Catholic  bishops  and  Catholic  barons  at  Riinneymede  wrung 
the  charter  of  our  liberties — the  grand  parent  of  all  known  liberty 
in  the  Avorld — from  the  hands  of  a  tyrant.  I  should  teach  them 
where  to  find  the  bright  spots  on  our  history,  though  the  gentleman 
wdio  represents  the  Methodists  knew  not  wUere  they  were  to  be 
found.  This  I  would  do,  and  should  I  violate  the  law  ?  If,  instead 
of  the  burning  of  IIuss,  I  gave  them  a  chapter  on  the  character  ot 
Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton,  as  a  reading  lesson,  wmuld  that  be 
teaching  them  of  purgatory,  and  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  ? 

But  if  our  circumstances  w’ere  reversed,  so  that  Catholics  con¬ 
trolled  the  public  schools,  would  not  Presbyterians  have  a  right  to 
complain  ? — and  should  not  we  be  tyrants  wdiile  we  refused  to  listen 
to  their  complaints,  if  wm  spread  before  their  children  lessons  on  the 
burning  of  Servetus  by  Calvin,  and  on  the  hangings  of  members  of  the 
Society  of  Friends  by  those  who  held  Calvin’s  doctrines?  I  should 
listen  to  their  appeal  in  such  a  case  with  feelings  fiir  different  from 
those  manifested  by  them  in  regard  to  others.  But  I  would  do 
more,  in  order  that  those  little  vagrants,  of  wdiom  the  gentleman 
speaks,  might  come  into  school.  Their  parents  themselves  having 


BErOEE  THE  CITY  COITNCIL. 


157 


by  persecution  been  deprived,  in  many  instances,  of  an  education,  do 
not  fully  appreciate  its  advantages,  and  if  you  seek  to  enforce  the 
attendance  of  their  children,  they  will  resist;  if  you  attempt  to 
coerce  them  you  will  not  succeed.  But  if  you  put  them  in  a  way 
to  be  admitted  without  being  dragged  by  force  to  the  school,  or 
without  destroying  their  religious  principles  when  they  enter  (which 
you  have  no  right  to  do),  then  you  will  prepare  good  citizens,  edu¬ 
cated  to  the  extent  that  will  make  them  useful  to  their  countiy. 
Then  their  parents,  having  confidence  in  their  pastors,  will  send 
their  children  to  schools  approved  of  by  them — and  the  children 
themselves  may  attend  schools  where  they  need  not  be  ashamed  of 
their  creed,  and  where  their  companions  will  not  call  them  “  Papists,” 
and  tell  them  that  ignorance  and  vice  are  the  accompaniments  of 
their  religion.  That  will  be  the  result,  and  I  conceive  it  will  be 
beneficial. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  distinction  between  morality  and 
religion,  and  about  those  certain  broad  principles  on  which  it  is 
thought  all  can  agree.  And  yet  oirr  opponents  contend — and  I  am 
surprised  at  the  circumstance — gentlemen  who  are  not  only  Chris¬ 
tians  themselves,  but  Christian  ministers,  contend  all  through  for 
the  rights  of  those  who  are  not  of  the  Christian  religion,  but  are 
commonly  called  infidels.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  draw  a 
distinction  between  morality  and  religion.  I  have  already  said,  and 
there  is  not  a  gentleman  here  who  will  pretend  to  deny  it,  that  mo¬ 
rality  must  rest  on  religion  for  its  basis.  I  refer  you,  and  it  is  not 
an  ordinary  authority,  to  a  man  who  passed  through  life  with  the 
most  beautiful  character  and  the  most  blameless  reputation  that  ever 
fell  to  the  lot  of  a  public  man ;  one  who  was  distinguished  almost 
above  all  other  men ;  one,  of  whom  it  would  be  profane  to  say  that 
he  was  inspired,  yet,  of  whom  history  has  not  handed  down  one 
useless  action,  or  one  single  idle  word,  a  man  who  left  to  his  coun¬ 
try  an  inheritance  of  the  brightest  example,  and  the  fairest  name 
that  ever  soldier  or  statesman  bequeathed  to  a  nation — that  man  was 
George  Washingtons'.  Hear  what  he  says  in  his  Farewell  Ad¬ 
dress,  on  the  attempt  now  being  made  to  preserve  morality  Avhilst 
religion  is  discarded  from  the  public  schools. 

“  Of  all  the  dispositions  and  habits  which  lead  to  political  prosperity,  religion 
and  morality  are  indispensable  supports.  In  vain  would  that  man  claim  the  trib¬ 
ute  of  patriotism,  who  should  labor  to  subvert  these  great  pillars  of  human  happi¬ 
ness.  these  firmest  props  of  the  duties  of  men  and  citizens.  The  mere  politician, 
equally  with  the  pious  man,  ought  to  respect  and  to  cherish  them.  A  volume  could 
not  trace  all  their  connections  with  private  and  public  felicity.  Let  it  be  simply 
asked,  where  is  the  security  for  property,  for  reimtation,  for  life,  if  the  sense  of  re¬ 
ligious  obligations  desert  the  oaths,  which  are  the  instruments  of  investigation  in 
courts  of  justice?  And  let  us  with  caution  indulge  tlie  supposition,  that  morality 
can  be  maintained  without  religion.  Whatever  may  be  conceded  to  the  influence 
of  refined  education  on  minds  of  peculiar  structure,  reason  and  experience  both  for¬ 
bid  us  to  expect  that  national  morality  can  prevail  in  exclusion  of  religious  prin¬ 
ciple.  • 

“  ’Tis  substantially  true,  that  virtue  or  morality  is  a  necessary  spring  of  popular 
government.  TTie  rule  indeed  extends  with  more  or  less  force  to  every  species  of 


158 


AECITBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


free  government.  Who  that  is  a  sincere  friend  to  it  can  look  with  indifference  upon 
attempts  to  shake  the  foundation  of  the  fabric  ?” 

Such  is  the  warning,  the  solemn  warning  of  this  great  man.  If 
you  take  away  religion,  on  what  foundation  do  you  propose  to  rear 
the  structure  of  morality?  No — they  stand  to  each  other  in  the 
relation  of  parent  and  offspring,  or  rather  they  are  kindred  prin¬ 
ciples  from  the  same  divine  source,  and  what  God  has  joined  to¬ 
gether,  let  no  man  pirt  asunder. 

Now,  with  regard  to  all  said  by  me  against  the  Protestant  Bible, 
I  appeal  to  this  honorable  body  whether  I  ever  said  one  word 
hostile  to  that  Bible  ;•  and  yet,  from  the  address  of  the  gentlemen 
on  the  other  side,  men  abroad,  who  should  read  their  speeches, 
would  be  led  to  believe  that  I  not  only  entertained,  but  that  I  had 
uttered  sentiments  of  hostility  to  that  work.  And  it  is  ever  thus 
that  our  principles  and  our  feelings  are  misrepresented,  while  gentle¬ 
men  profess  to  be  conscious  of  entertaining  no  prejudice  against  us 
as  Catholics.  One  gentleman,  however,  avowed  his  hostility  to  us 
on  this  ground,  and  for  his  candor  I  tender  my  acknowledgment. 
The  whole  effort  of  some  of  the  gentlemen,  indeed  of  all  who  have 
spoken  on  the  subject,  has  been  to  show  that  the  system  must  be 
made  so  broad  and  liberal  that  all  can  agree  in  it — but  I  think  they 
contend  for  too  much  when  they  wish  so  to  shape  religion  and 
balance  it  on  its  pedestal  as  to  make  it  suit  every  body  and  every 
sect ;  for  if  infidels  are  to  be  suited,  and  it  is  made  to  rconcile  them 
to  the  system,  I  want  to  know  whether  Catholics  or  any  other  class 
are  not  entitled  to  the  right  to  have  it  made  to  suit  them.  And  if 
everybody  is  to  be  made  satisfied,  why  is  it  that  Catholics  and 
others  are  discontented  and  excluded  ?  Is  it  not  manifest  that  what 
they  profess  to  accomplish  is  beyond  their  reach  ?  Now  the  infidels 
have  found  able  advocates  in  the  reverend  gentlemen  who  have  spoken 
in  the  course  of  this  discussion — I  mean  the  interests  of  infidelity — 
and  why  is  it,  then,  that  the  gentlemen  who  jdead  for  that  side  of 
the  question,  enter  their  protest  against  ours  ?  I  should  like  to 
know  why  there  is  this  inconsistency.  If  the  rule  is  to  be  general, 
why  is  it  not  general  ? 

I  })ass  now  to  the  reasoning  of  one  learned  gentleman  who  spoke 
yesterday,  and  defended  the  Protestant  Bible.  Now  this  was  un¬ 
necessary  in  that  gentleman — it  was  in  him  a  work  of  supereroga¬ 
tion  to  vindicate  the  Protestant  Scriptures — it  was  useless  to  defend 
a  point  which  had  not  been  attacked.  It  was  time  lost ;  and  yet, 
perhaps,  not  altogether  lost;  for  in  some  respects  it  may  have  been 
profitable  enough.  In  entering  on  its  defence,  he  said  it  Avas  the 
instrument  of  human  liberty  throughout  the  Avorld — Avherever  it 
was,  there  was  light  and  liberty ;  and  where  it  was  not,  there  was 
bondage  and  darkness ;  and  he  brought  it  round  so,  that  he  almost 
asserts  that  our  Declaration  of  Independence  has  been  cojAied  from 
the  Bible.  No  doubt  the  just  and  righteous  principles  on  which 
that  Declaration  has  its  foundation,  have  their  sanction  in  the  Bible, 
but  I  deny  their  immediate  connection,  and  on  historical  grounds, 


BEFOEE  THE  CITY  COENCIL. 


159 


for  it  is  known  that  its  author  looked  upon  St.  Paul  as  an  imposter ; 
consequently  their  connection  is  not  historically  true.  But  while 
the  gentleman  referred  to  our  notes  (but  which  we  disown  and  re¬ 
pudiate),  as  containing  principles  of  persecution — how  was  it  that 
after  the  Protestant  Bible,  “  without  note  and  comment,”  came  into 
use,  every  denomination  of  Protestants  in  the  ivhole  world  that  had 
the  misfortune,  for  it  must  have  been  a  misfortune,  to  be  yoked  to 
civil  power,  wielded  the  sword  of  persecution,  and  derived  their 
authority  for  so  doing  from  the  naked  text?  Yes,  in  Scotland,  in  all 
her  confessions  of  faith — in  England,  and  I  appeal  to  her  penal  laws 
against  Catholics,  and  those  acts  b}^  wdiich  the  Puritans  and  Dis¬ 
senters  were  pursued,  men  who  had  the  misfortune,  like  ourselves, 
to  have  a  conscience,  were  driven  out,  and  all  was  done  on  the  autho¬ 
rity  of  the  Bible,  without  note  or  comment,  and  for  the  public  good 
and  the  good  of  the  Church.  I  do  not  say  that  the  Bible  sanctioned 
persecution,  but  I  deny  that  the  absence  of  notes  is  an  adequate 
preventive.  I  refer  to  history.  And  almost  to  this  day,  though 
the  Bible  has  been  translated  three  hundred  years,  even  in  liberal 
governments,  the  iron  heel  of  persecution  has  been  placed  on  the 
dearest  rights  of  Catholics.  The  gentleman  to  whom  I  alluded 
said,  no  doubt,  what  he  knew  would  be  popular  out  of  doors, 
for  he  seems,  with  others,  to  imagine  that  the  world  began  at  the 
period  of  the  Reformation.  He  seems  to  think  that  everything 
gi’eat  originated  at  that  period.  But  does  he  not  know  that  eight 
hundred  editions  of  the  Bible  had  been  printed  before  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  ?  And  docs  he  not  know  that  tAvo  hundred  editions  had  been 
circulated  in  the  common  tongue,  in  the  common  language  of  the 
country  ?  And  has  he  yet  to  learn  that  the  first  prohibition  to  read 
the  Bible  came  not  from  a  Catholic,  but  from  a  Protestant — from 
Protestant  Henry  VHI.,  of  “  glorious  memory  ?”  lie  Avas  the  first 
to  issue  a  prohibition,  and  it  Avas  not  till  Catholics  saAV  the  evil — not 
of  the  Bible,  but  the  bad  uses  men  Avere  making  of  the  Bible,  that 
they  placed  its  perusal  under  certain  restrictions,  and  cautioned  their 
people  against  hastily  judging  of  it  for  themselves.  All  had  been 
united  and  harmonious,  but  by  the  use,  or  abuse,  Avhich  men  made 
of  the  Bible,  all  became  doubt  and  siieculation,  the  positive  revela¬ 
tion  of  Christ  Avas  shaken  or  destroyed.  They  saAV  this  Bible,  and 
what  then  ?  But,  AAdiile  these  school  gentlemen  contend  that  it  is 
a  shield  against  infidelity,  and  that  all  sects  here  agree,  how  is  it  out 
of  the  schools  ?  Why,  no  sects  agree  upon  it.  How  is  it  that  the 
Bible,  Avhicli  is  given  by  the  inspiration  of  God,  the  God  of  truth, 
is  made  use  of  in  this  city  even,  to  prove  a  Trinity,  and  to  disprove 
a  Trinity  ?  Hoav  is  it  that  Trinitarians  quote  it  to  prove  their  doc¬ 
trines,  and  Unitarians  quote  it  to  establish  the  opposite  doctrines  ? 
How  is  it  that  Avhilst  one  says  from  the  Bible  that  God  the  Father 
is  God  alone,  and  that  Christ  is  not  equal  to  Him,  for  He  says,  '•‘■The 
Father  is  greater  than  another  argues  from  the  same  Bible  that 
the  Father  and  Son  are  equal,  because  Christ  says  '•'•The  Father  and 
I  are  one?''  And  another  comes  with  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  and 


160 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


says,  I  believe,  and  I  can  prove  it  from  this  Bible  that  Christ  alone 
is  the  Almighty  God,  and  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  are  only  attri¬ 
butes  of  the  same  person !  AVhy,  this  Bible  which  they  say  is  the 
foundation  of  all  truth,  and  they  say  well,  when  it  is  truly  under¬ 
stood,  a  grace  which  God  can  vouchsafe,  and,  no  doubt.  He  does  to 
many,  this  Bible  is  harmonious  in  its  every  doctrine.  But'  that  is 
not  the  point — the  point  is  the  uses  we  see  men  make  of  it,  and  this 
is  the  sum  of  our  reason  that  we  wish  our  children  not  to  be  taught 
in  the  manner  in  which  Protestant  children  are  taught  in  reference 
to  the  Bible. 

And  then,  again,  if  you  teach  that  there  is  a  hell,  according  to 
the  Bible,  others  will  contend  thaf  the  Scriptures  teach  no  such  doc¬ 
trine,  and  so  I  might  pass  on  to  other  points,  to  show  you  whilst 
they  thus  contend  for  the  Bible  as  the  guide  to  truth,  there  is  this 
disagreement  among  them,  at  least  in  this  country,  where  human 
rights  and  liberties  are  understood  as  allowing  every  man  to  judge 
for  himself.  Is  there  not,  then,  danger — is  there  no  ground  to  ap- 
jjrehend  that  when  our  children  read  this  Bible,  and  find  that  all 
these  dilferent  sects  father  all  their  contradictions  on  the  Bible  as 
their  authority,  they  will  derive  their  first  notions  of  infidelity  from 
these  circumstances  ?  But  there  is  another  ground  on  which  it  is 
manifest  we  cannot  allow  our  children  to  be  taught  by  them. 
Whilst  we  grant  them  the  right  to  take,  if  they  please,  the  Protes¬ 
tant  Bible  as  the  rule  of  their  faith,  and  the  individual  right  to 
judge  of  the  Bible — and  this  great  principle  they  proclaim  as  the 
peculiar  and  distinctive,  and  most  glorious  trait  in  their  religious 
character  and  history — and  let  them  boast  of  it,  there  is  no  difficulty 
on  the  subject — they  interpret  the  Bible  by  the  standard  of  reason, 
and  therefore,  as  there  is  no  given  standard  of  reason — as  one  has 
more  and  another  less — they  scarcely  ever  arrive  at  the  same  result, 
while  the  Bible,  the  eternal  Word  of  God,  remains  the  same.  But 
this  is  not  a  Catholic  principle.  Catholics  do  not  believe  that  God 
has  vouchsafed  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  every  individual, 
but  that  He  has  given  His  Spirit  to  teach  the  Church  collectively, 
and  to  guide  the  Church,  and  therefore  we  do  not  receive  as  the 
Bible  except  what  the  Church  guarantees ;  and  wanting  this  guar¬ 
antee,  the  Methodist  gentleman  failed  to  establish  the  book,  which 
he  produced  with  its  notes,  as  a  Catholic  Bible.  We  do  not  take 
the  Bible  on  the  authority  of  a  “  King’s  Printer,”  who  is  a  specu¬ 
lating  publisher,  who  publishes  it  but  as  a  speculation.  And  why  ? 
Because  by  the  change  of  a  single  comma,  that  which  is  positive 
may  be  made  negative,  and  vice  versa,  and  then  is  it  the  Bible  of  the 
inspired  writers  ?  It  is  not.  They  proclaim,  then,  that  theirs  is  a 
Christianity  of  reason ;  of  this  they  boast,  and  let  them  glory.  Ours 
is  a  Christianity  of  faith;  ours  descends  by  the  teaching  of  the 
Church ;  we  are  never  authorized  to  introduce  new  doctrines,  be¬ 
cause  w^e  contend  that  no  new  doctrine  is  true,  from  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  unless  it  has  come  from  the  mind  of  God  by  a  special  reve¬ 
lation,  and  to  us  that  is  not  manifest  among  the  reformers.  We  are 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


161 


satisfied  to  trust  our  eternal  interests,  for  weal  or  woe,  on  the  se¬ 
curity  of  that  Catholic  Church,  and  the  veracity  of  the  divine  prom¬ 
ises.  You  perceive,  therefore,  that  Protestants  may  agree  in  the 
system  Avhere  this  Bible  is  thus  introduced ;  but  it  is  not  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  principles  of  Catholics,  that  each  one  shall  derive 
therefrom  his  own  notions  of  Christianity.  It  is  not  the  principle 
of  Catholics,  because  they  believe  in  the  incompetence  of  individual 
reason,  in  matters  of  such  importance.  It  is  from  this  self-sufficiency 
and  imputed  capacity  that  men  derive  such  notions  of  self-confidence, 
Avhich,  owing  to  a  want  of  power  to  control  in  some  domestic  cir¬ 
cles,  if  taught  to  our  children,  lead  to  disobedience  and  disregard 
of  the  parental  authority. 

I  have  been  obliged  to  enter  into  this,  which  is  rather  theological 
than  otherwise,  to  put  you  in  possession  of  the  true  ground.  We 
do  not  take  the  Protestant  Bible,  but  we  do  not  wish  others  not 
to  take  it  if  they  desire  it.  If  conscience  be  stifled,  you  do  not 
make  us  better  men  or  better  citizens,  and  therefore  I  say,  gentle¬ 
men,  respect  conscience,  even  though  you  think  it  in  error,  provided 
it  does  not  conflict  with  the  public  rights. 

I  have  sufficiently  disposed  of  the  addresses  of  the  two  legal  gen¬ 
tlemen  who  have  spoken.  I  will  now  call  the  attention  of  this  hon¬ 
orable  body  to  the  remarks  of  the  reverend  gentleman  who  spoke  in 
relation  to  the  Rhemish  Testament.  I  did  use,  sir,  yesterday  an 
expression  which  I  used  with  reluctance ;  but  when  we  were  charged 
before  this  honorable  body — when  the  reverend  gentleman  who 
represents  a  numerous  denomination,  charged  us  with  teaching  the 
lawfulness  of  murdering  heretics,  that  expression  came  on  me  as 
a  thunderbolt,  because  I  thought  that  truth  should  proceed  from  the 
lips  of  age  and  a  man  of  character.  And,  sir,  I  knew  that  position 
was  not  true,  and  that  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  assert  a  thing,  but 
not  so  easy  to  disprove  it.  I  might  take  advantage  of  circumstan¬ 
ces  to  charge  a  man  with  things  that  it  would  take  weeks  to  dis¬ 
prove,  and  therefore  I  thought  it  necessary  to  nail  that  slanderous 
statement  to  the  counter  before  it  could  have  its  designed  influence 
here  or  elsewhere.  That  gentleman  began  with  great  humility, 
and  with  professions  of  being  devoid  of  prejudice,  and  then  he  said 
that  those  meetings  to  which  he  referred,  and  which  he  called  “  piib- 
lic  gatherings,”  had  caused  him  to  feel  greatly  alarmed  about  this 
(question,  as  if  the  stability  of  your  Republic  was  endangered,  pro- 
A'ided  Catholic  children  received  the  benefits  of  a  common  school 
education!  He  said  I  had  applied  certain  remarks  to  the  creed  of 
the  Society  of  Friends,  and,  though  perhaps  it  was  somewhat  out 
of  order,  but  wishing  to  set  the  gentleman  right,  I  denied  that  I  had 
done  so.  But  since  then  the  reporter  has  handed  me  the  notes  taken 
of  what  I  did  say,  and  from  them  also  it  appears  that  I  said  no  such 
thing.  He  referred  to  the  practice  of  teaching  religion  in  the  schools ; 
but  of  that  I  have  disposed  already. 

He  then,  while  going  through  the  introductory  part  of  the  re¬ 
monstrance  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  threw  out  constantly 
11 


16?, 


AECHBISnOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


calnmuious  charges  against  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  Catholic 
religion ;  he  did  not  throw  them  out  as  assertions  bnt  by  inuendo,  as 
“if  it  be  true,”  and  “I  should  like  to  know,”  as  if  I  am  here  for  the 
pui-jiGse  of  suppljdng  everything  he  would  “like  to  know.”  And  how 
can  I  meet  him  when  insinuation  is  the  form  in  which  his  charges 
are  thrown  out?  Why,  their  very  feebleness  takes  from  an  opponent 
the  power  of  refutation.  But  when  he  comes  to  something  tangible, 
then  I  can  meet  him.  Having  gone  through  a  series  of  insinuations, 
he  misrepresents  our  intentions,  notwithstanding  we  disclaim  such 
an  intention,  he  indulges  in  the  gratuitous  supposition  that  if 
your  honorable  body  should  grant  our  petition,  we  shall  secretly 
teach  the  Catholic  religion.  But  if  we  do,  is  not  the  law  as  potbnt 
against  us  as  against  the  public  schools  ?  If  they  teach  religion,  as 
they  acknowledge, .  why  may  not  we?  We  are  not  grasping  to 
obtain  power  over  others,  but  we  desire  in  sincerity  to  benefit  a  por¬ 
tion  of  our  own  neglected  children.  I  shall  pass  over,  therefore, 
a  great  deal  of  what  the  gentleman  “  would  like  to  know,”  for  I  do 
not  know  if  it  is  of  importance  to  the  subject.  He  said  this  Hhemish 
Testament  was  published  by  authority ;  but  he  began  by  a  retreat, 
.and  not  by  a  direct  charge :  he  did  “  not  profess  to  say  that  our 
Church  approved  of  it ;”  but  it  was  printed  and  published,  and  it 
was  not  on  the  “  Index,”  as  if  every  bad  book  in  the  world  must  be 
in  the  Index;  and  with  this  evidence  of  fact,  he  comes  here  and 
spreads  before  the  American  people  the  slander  and  calunmy  that  the 
Catholics  by  their  notes  and  comments  teach  the  lawfulness  of  mur¬ 
dering  heretics.  Now,  sir,  I  wiU  take  up  that  book  and  the  parts 
he  read  with  the  notes,  giving  an  explanation  as  though  they  came 
from  Catholics.  Do  you  know  the  history  of  that  book,  sir  ?  If 
not,  I  can  tell  ymi.  When  Queen  Elizabeth  scourged  the  Catholics 
from  their  altars,  and  drove  them  into  exile,  these  men  held  a  com¬ 
mon  notion,  which  was  natural  and  just,  that  England  was  their 
country,  and  that  they  were  suffering  unmerited  persecution.  The 
new  religion,  not  satisfied  with  toleration  for  itself,  grasped  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  things,  grasped  the  j^ower  of  the  State,  seized  all  their 
temples ;  and  not  even  satisfied  with  this,  scourged  the  C.atholics 
from  their  home  and  country ;  and  they  did  write  these  notes,  .and 
why  ?  They  wrote  them  in  exile,  smarting  under  the  lash  and  the 
torture,  and  in  connection,  too,  with  a  plan  for  the  invasion  of  Eng¬ 
land  by  Philip  H.  of  Spain.  Their  object  was  to  disseminate  amongst 
Catholics  of  England  disaffection  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  thus 
dispose  them  to  join  the  true  Catholics  and  oppose  the  heretics, 
because  the  heretics  were  their  enemies,  were  the  enemies  of  their 
rights,  and  had  crushed  them.  But  when  that  book  appeared  in 
England,  was  there  a  single  .approval  given  it,  a  single  C.atholic  that 
received  it  ?  Not  one.  When  it  was  published  for  political  ends — 
to  aid  the  invasion  of  Philip — did  the  English  Catholics  receive  it  ? 
Never.  But  the  gentleman  said  it  was  published  by  the  Bishops  of 
Ireland,  and  with  their  approbation,  and  with  the  approbation  of  a 
great  number  of  the  Catholic  clergy;  and  this  after  his  own  ad- 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


16.3 


mission  that,  insomuch  as  it  had  not  been  approved  by  the  Holy 
See,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  it  was  not  of  authority  in  the  Catholic 
Church.  Now  I  shall  take  up  both  parts,  and  first  I  should  like  to 
know  where  is  his  authority  +hat  it  was  published  by  the  Bishops 
of  Ireland?  I  pause  for  a  leply,  and  I  shall  not  consider  it  an 
interruption. 

Dr.  Bond.  Do  you  wish  an  answer  ? 

Bishop  Hughes.  I  do,  sir ;  I  desire  your  authority. 

Dr.  Bond.  Why,  if  we  are  to  believe  history,  it  is  true ;  it  is 
stated  in  the  “British  Critic.” 

Bishop  Hughes.  Oh  !  I  am  satisfied. 

Dr.  Bond.  It  could  not  have  been  reviewed,  if  it  did  not  exist. 

Bishop  Hughes.  Oh !  it  is  here  ;  and  that  proves  its  existence, 
without  the  “  British  Critic.”  It  was  gone  out  of  print  again,  and 
not  a  Catholic  now  heard  of  it ;  but  your  liberal  Protestant  clergy¬ 
men  of  New  York  republished  it.  What  for?  To  bring  infamy 
on  the  Catholic  name ;  and  it  w’as  from  this  Protestant  edition,  and 
not  from  Ireland,  that  the  Methodist  gentleman  received  it.  I  am 
now  not  surprised  at  his  saying  so  often  that  he  would  “  like  to 
know,”  for  a  little  more  knowledge  would  be  of  great  advantage  to 
him.  I  need  not  read  it. 

Dr.  Bond.  Oh,  you  had  better. 

Bishop  Hughes.  Well,  sir,  anytliing  to  accommodate  you. 

“  It  is  a  remarkable  faet,  that  notwithstanding  tlie  whole  New  Testament,  as  it  was 
translated  and  explained  by  the  members  of  the  Jesuit  College  at  Rheims,  in  1682, 
has  been  republished  in  a  great  number  of  editions,  and  their  original  annotations, 
either  more  or  less  extensively,  have  been  added  to  the  text ;  yet  as  a  work  it  is 
appealed  to  as  an  authority  ;  the  Roman  Church  admit  both  the  value  of  the  book 
and  the  obligation  of  the  Papists  to  believe  its  contents.  W e  have  no  more  strik¬ 
ing  modern  instance  to  prove  this  deceitfulness.” 

It  must  be  recollected  that  this  is  a  Protestant  publication  ;  the 
Catholics  did  not  circulate  it,  but  the  Protestant  ministers  did,  to 
mislead  their  flocks  and  to  bring  infamy  on  their  Catholic  fellow- 
citizens. 

“  The  Douay  Bible  is  usually  so  called,  because  although  the  New  Testament 
was  first  translated  and  published  at  Rheims,  yet  the  Old  Testament  was  printed 
some  years  after  at  Douay;  the  English  Jesuits  having  removed  their  monastery 
from  Rheims  to  Douay,  before  their  version  of  the  Old  Testament  was  completed. 
In  the  year  1816,  an  edition,  including  both  the  Douay  Old,  and  the  Rhemish  New 
Testament,  was  issued  at  Dublin,  containing  a  large  number  of  comments,  replete 
with  impiefy.  irreligion,  and  the  most  fiery  persecution.  That  edition  was  pub¬ 
lished  under  the  direction  of  all  the  dignitaries  of  the  Roman  Hierarchy  in  Ire¬ 
land,  and  about  three  hundred  others  of  the  most  influential  subordinate  priests.” 

t 

Now,  I  called  for  the  gentleman’s  evidence  of  this,  and  the  gen¬ 
tleman  was  found  minus  habens — he  has  it  not  to  give.  The  prints 
said  so,  and  he  believed  the  prints !  Now,  sir,  this  is  a  grave  charge, 
and  I  am  disposed  to  treat  it  gravely  ;  but  I  should  not  feel  worthy 
of  the  name  of  a  man,  I  should  feel  myself  unworthy  of  being  a  mem¬ 
ber  ol  the  American  family,  if  I  had  not  risen  and  repelled  such  a 
charge  as  it  deserved. 


V 


164  ARCHBESHOP  HUGHEs’  SECOND  SPEECH 

Dr.  Bond.  You  have  not  read  all  I  read. 

Bishop  Hughes.  I  will  read  all  the  gentleman  may  wish,  if  he 
will  not  keep  me  here  reading  all  night. 

“  The  notes  which  urged  the  hatred  and  murder  of  Protestants,  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  British  churches,  and,  to  use  the  words  of  T.  Hartwell  Horne,  thirt 
edition  of  the  Rhemish  Testament,  printed  at  Dublin  in  1816,  corrected  and  revised 
and  approved  by  Dr.  Troy,  Roman  Catholic  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  was  re^dewed 
by  the  ‘  British  Critic,’  vol.  viii.,  pp.  296-308  ;  new  series ;  and  its  dangerous  tenets, 
both  civil  and  religious,  were  exposed.” 

That  is  the  testimony. 

Dr.  Bond.  There  is  another  paragraph. 

Bishop  Hdghes.  Well,  I  will  read  the  other. 

“  This  publication,  with  many  others  of  a  similar  character  produced  so  great  an 
excitement  in  Britain,  that  finally  some  of  the  most  j^rominent  of  the  Irish  Roman 
prelates  were  called  before  the  English  Parliament  to  prove  their  own  ■work.  Then, 
and  upon  oath,  with  all  official  solemnity,  they  peremptorily  disclaimed  the  vol¬ 
umes  published  by  their  own  instigation,  and  under  their  own  supervision  and  aus¬ 
pices,  as  books  of  no  authority ;  because  they  had  not  been  ratified  by  the  Pope, 
and  received  by  the  whole  Papal  church.” 

Now,  what  authority  have  we  for  this  charge  of  perjury  against 
the  Irish  bishops,  better  than  the  gentleman’s  own  ?  It  is  so  stated 
here  ;  what  authority  is  there  for  that  ? 

Dr.  Bond.  It  was  so  stated  before  the  British  Parliament. 

Bishop  Hughes.  I  should  regret,  on  account  of  your  age,  if  I 
used  any  expression  that  might  be  deemed  harsh. 

Dr.  Bond.  Take  the  liberty  to  say  what  you  please. 

Bishop  Hughes.  With  regard  to  these  notes,  I  have  to  observe, 
that  they  were  written  in  an  age  (1582)  when  the  rights  of  con¬ 
science  were  but  little  understood.  Protestants  in  that  age  every¬ 
where  persecuted,  not  only  Catholics,  but  each  other.  And  long 
after,  the  Puritans  of  New  England,  with  the  Bible,  and  without 
notes,  persecuted  with  torture,  and  even  to  hanging  their  fellow- 
Protestants.  It  was  not  wonderful,  therefore,  if  in  such  an  age 
Catholics  were  found  to  entertain  the  opinions  set  forth  in  the  notes. 
But,  bad  as  they  are,  it  is  remarkable  that  they  do  not  sustain  the 
calumnious  charge  of  the  reverend  gentleman,  that  they  “  teach  the 
lawfulness  of  murdering  heretics.” 

And  now,  sir,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  book  itself. 

In  the  13th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  there  is  this  text,  at  the  29th 
verse.  It  occurs  in  the  parable  of  the  cockle  (in  the  Protestant 
version,  iares)  and  the  wheat,  in  answer  to  Christ’s  disciples,  who 
asked:  “  thou  that  we  gather  it  up?'''  And  he  said,  “No:  lest 
perhaps,  gathering  up  the  cockles,  you  may  root  up  the  wheat  also  to¬ 
gether  with  it."  The  annotation  on  this  is  : 

“  Ver.  29.  Lest  you  pluck  up  also.  _  The  good  must  tolerate  the  evil,  -when  it  is 
BO  strong  that  it  cannot  be  repressed  without  danger  and  disturbance  of  the  'whole 
Church,  and  commit  the  matter  to  God’s  judgment  in  the  latter  day.  Otherwise, 
where  ill  men,  be  they  heretics  or  other  malefactors,  may  be  inmished  or  sup¬ 
pressed  without  disturbance  and  hazard  of  the  good,  they  may,  and  ought,  by 
public  authority,  either  spiritual  temporal,  to  be  chastised  or  executed.” 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


166 


They  may  and  ought,  “  public  an£hority  P’’  Why,  the  propo¬ 
sition  of  the  gentleman  was,  tliat  Catholics  were  taught  to  kill  their 
Protestant  neighhors,  Now,  there  is  not  throughout  the  whole 
volume  a  proposition  so  absurd  as  the  idea  conveyed  by  him.  Bad 
as  the  notes  are,  they  require  falsification  to  bear  him  out. 

Again,  Luke  ix.  54-55  :  ‘•''And  when  his  disciples  James  and  John 
had  seen  it,  they  said,  Lord  wilt  thou  we  say  that  fire  come  down  from 
heaven  and  consume  them?  And  turning,  he  rebuked  them,  saying, 
Y^ou  knoiv  not  of  what  spirit  you  areP  Annotation: 

Ver.  65.  He  rebuked  them.  Not  justice,  nor  all  rigorous  punishment  of  sinners 
is  here  forbidden,  nor  Elias’s  fact  reprehended,  nor  the  Church  or  Christian  princes 
blamed  for  putting  lieretics  to  death.  But  none  of  these  should  be  done  for  desire 
of  our  particular  revenge,  or  without  discretion  and  regard  of  their  amendment, 
and  example  to  others.  Therefore  Peter  used  his  power  upon  Ananias  and  Saphira 
when  he  struck  them  both  down  to  death  for  defrauding  the  Church.” 

I  am  afraid  I  shall  fatigue  this  honorable  body  by  gomg  over 
these  notes  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  that  I  should  follow  the  gentleman 
in  all  his  discursive  wanderings.  There  is  nothing  in  this  to  author- 
ize  the  murdering  of  heretics. 

But  again,  Luke  xiv.  23.  “  And  the  Lord  said  to  the  servant.  Go 

forth  unto  the  ways  and  hedges  ;  and  compel  them  to  enter,  that  my 
house  may  be  filled.''''  Annotation : 

“  Compel  them.  The  vehement  persuasion  that  God  useth,  both  externally,  by 
force  of  his  word  and  miracles,  and  internally  by  his  grace,  to  bring  us  unto  him, 
is  called  compelling ;  not  that  he  forceth  any  one  to  come  to  him  against  their 
wills,  but  that  he  can  alter  and  mollify  a  hard  heart,  and  make  him  willing,  that 
before  would  not.  Augustine,  also,  referreth  this  compelling  to  the  penal  laws, 
which  Catholic  princes  do  justly  use  against  heretics  and  schismatics,  proving  that 
they  who  are  by  their  former  profession  in  baptism  subject  to  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  are  departed  from  the  same  after  sects,  may  and  ought  to  be  compelled  into 
the  unity  and  society  of  the  Universal  Church  again ;  and  therefore,  in  this  sense, 
by  the  tw'o  former  parts  of  the  parable,  the  Jews  first,  and  secondly  the  Gentiles, 
that  never  believed  before  in  Christ,  were  invited  by  fair,  sweet  means  only ;  but 
by  the  third,  such  are  invited  as  the  Church  of  God  hath  power  over,  because  they 
promised  in  bajjtism,  and  therefore  are  to  be  revoked  not  only  by  gentle  means, 
but  by  just  punishment  also.” 

Sir,  the  punishment  of  spiritual  offences  and  the  allusions  here 
made  to  it,  have  their  roots  too  deeji  and  too  wide-spreading  to  be 
entered  into  and  discussed  in  the  time  that  I  could  occupy  this  eve¬ 
ning.  It  would  be  impossible  to  go  over  the  historical  grounds 
which  suggest  themselves  in  connection  with  the  subject,  to  show 
the  results  to  the  state  of  society  which  grew  unavoidably  out  of 
the  breaking  up  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  the  incursion  of  new 
and  uncivilized  nations  and  tribes.  Society  had  been  dissolved, 
with  all  the  order  and  laws  of  the  ancient  civilization.  It  was  the 
slow  work  of  the  Church  to  re-organize  the  new  and  crude  materials ; 
to  gather  and  arrange  the  fragments  ;  to  re-model  society  and  social 
institutions  as  best  she  might.  There  was  no  other  power  that 
could  digest  the  crude  mass ;  the  fierce  infusions  of  other  tongues 


106 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


and  tribes  and  nations  that  had,  during  the  chaos,  become  mixed  up 
with  the  remains  of  ancient  Roman  civilization.  She  had  to  beuin 
by  religion,  their  conversion  to  Christianity  being  the  first  step ; 
and  the  Catholic  Church  being  the  only  one  in  existence.  Hence 
the  laws  of  religion  are  the  first  with  which  those  new  populations 
became  acquainted,  and  the  only  ones  that  could  restrain  them. 
Hence,  too,  what  is  called  canon  law  went  before,  and  civil  law 
gradually  followed,  oftentimes  mixed  with  and  deriving  its  force 
from  the  older  form  of  legislation.  The  actual  state  of  society  made 
it  unavoidable  that  this  should  be  the  order  of  things.  Civil  gov¬ 
ernments  oftentimes  eimrafted  whole  branches  of  the  ecclesiastical 
law  in  their  secular  codes ;  and  ecclesiastical  judges  were  often  the 
interpreters  and  administrators  of  both. 

Canonical  law  and  civil  law,  thus  blended,  became  the  codes  of 
civil  government,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  and  it  is  to  this 
state  of  things  that  the  authors  of  the  notes  make  allusion  in  their 
text.  But,  as  I  have  remarked,  the  subject  is  too  deep  to  be  prop¬ 
erly  discussed  on  this  occasion,  Avhen  time  is  so  brief,  and  so  many 
speakers  to  be  reiilied  to. 

We  now  come  to  Acts  xxv.  11 : 

“  I  appeal  to  Caesar.  If  Paul,  both  to  save  himself  from  whipping  and  from 
death,  sought  by  the  Jews,  doubted  not  to  cry  for  honor  of  tlie  Roman  laws,  and 
to  appeal  to  Csesar,  the  Prince  of  the  Romans,  not  yet  Christened,  how  much  more 
may  we  call  for  aid  of  Christian  princes  and  their  laws,  for  the  punishment  of  her¬ 
etics,  and  for  the  Church’s  defence  against  them.  Augiist.  Epist.  50.” 

Here  you  see  the  working  of  human  interest ;  and  it  is  not  the 
first  time,  among  Protestants  and  Catholics,  nor  will  it  be  the  last, 
that  men  have  made  the  Word  of  God  and  sacred  things  a  stepping- 
stone  to  promote  temporal  interests.  They  say  there,  “  Heretics 
have  banished  us,  and  is  it  not  naturally  the  interest  of  Catholics  to 
join  a  Catholic  prince  to  put  down  our  stern  persecutors?”  As  if 
they  had  said  to  their  fellow-Catholics  of  England,  a  Catholic  prince 
will  soon  make  a  descent  on  our  country,  it  will  be  your  duty,  as  it 
is  your  interest,  to  join  in  putting  down  the  heretic  Elizabeth,  who 
has  driven  us  from  our  country. 

I  go  now  to  Hebrews  x.  29;  '•'‘How  much  more.,  think  you.,  doth 
he  deserve  worse  punishments  who  hath  trodden  the  Son  of  God  under 
foot,  and  esteemed  the  blood  of  the  Testament  polluted  wherein  he  is 
sanctified,  and  hath  done  contrarily  to  the  spirit  of  grace  T''  Anno¬ 
tation  : 

“  Tlw  blood  of  the  Testament.  Whosoever  maketh  no  more  of  the  blood  of  Clirist’s 
sacrihce,  either  as  shed  upon  the  cross  or  in  the  chalice  of  the  altar,  for  our  Saviour 
calleth  that  the  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  tlian  he  doth  of  the  blood  of  calves 
and  sheep,  or  of  other  common  dinnks,  is  worthy  death,  and  God  will  in  the  future 
life,  if  it  be  not  punished  here,  revenge  it  with  grievous  punishment.” 

“  God  will  in  the  next  life  punish  !”  Why,  as  bad  as  these  notes 
are,  objectionable  and  scornfully  repudiated  as  they  were  by  the 
Catholics  of  England,  bad  as  they  are,  they  do  not  sustain  the  gen¬ 
tleman,  whose  assertion  has  gone  as  far  beyond  the  truth  as  it  is  so 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


167 


very  far  beyond  charity.  I  do  not  find  the  notes  from  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse,  wliich  would  have  gone  to  show  in  like  manner  that,  bad  as 
they  were,  tliey  do  not  sujiport  the  accusations  made. 

l3r.  Bond.  There  are  others  as  well. 

Bishop  Hughes.  Well,  I  will  give  you  the  rest. 

The  1’eesident.  Perhaps  it  is  not  necessary.  But  if  they  are, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  interrupt  the  gentleman. 

Bishop  Hughes.  Such  then,  sir,  are  the  notes  put  by  the  Catholic 
translators  of  the  ISTew  Testament,  at  Kheims,  in  1582 — smarting  as 
they  were  under  the  lash  of  Elizabeth’s  persecution,  and  looking 
forward  with  hope  to  the  result  of  the  invasion  by  Philip  H.  They 
were  repudiated  indignantly  by  the  Catholics  of  England  and  Ire¬ 
land  from  the  first ;  and  were  out  of  print,  until  some  Protestant 
ministers  of  New  York  had  them  published,  in  order  to  mislead  the 
people  and  to  excite  odium  against  the  Catholic  name. 

But  here,  sir,  is  the  acknowledged  Testament  of  all  Catholics 
who  speak  the  English  language  ;  this  is  known  and  may  be  read 
by  any  one,  it  is  the  14th  edition  in  this  country,  it  corresponds 
with  those  used  in  England  and  Ireland  ;  and  if  any  such  notes  can 
be  found  in  it,  then  believe  Catholics  to  be  what  they  have  been 
falsely  represented  to  be. 

But  the  reverend  gentleman  disclaims  originating  the  slander.  He 
took  it,  we  are  told,  from  the  British  Critic,  as  if  that  which  is 
false  must  become  true,  from  the  moment  it  is  put  in  type  and 
printed.  But,  sir,  he  should  have  known  that  the  article  in  the 
British  Critic  was  refuted  at  the  time,  and  has  been  since  refuted  in 
the  Dublin  Review.  And  it  so  happens  that  Doctor  Troy,  then 
Catholic  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  and  who  is  here  represented  as  hav¬ 
ing  approved  these  notes,  had  to  sustain  a  law-suit  with  the  Dublin 
publisher,  who  was  also  a  Protestant — not  for  approving  the  work, 
but  for  DENOUNCING  it,  which  destroyed  the  publisher’s  speculation, 
and  involved  a  suit  against  the  Archbishop  for  damages ! !  This  is 
attested  by  Dr.  Troy’s  letter,  now  before  me,  and  by  the  legal  pro¬ 
ceedings,  and  in  a  speech  made  by  Daniel  O’Connell  to  the  Catho¬ 
lic  Board  at  the  time  (1817),  we  find  the  following : 

"From  the  Dublin  Emning  Post  of  the  6th  of  December,  1817. 

CATHOLIC  BOARD— THE  RHEMISH  BIBLE. 

A  remai-kably  full  meeting  of  the  Catholic  Board  took  place  on  Thursday  last, 
pursuant  to  adjournment — Owen  O’Conner,  Esq.,  in  the  Chair. 

After  some  preliminary  business,  Mr.  O’Connell  rose  to  make  his  promised  mo¬ 
tion,  for  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  to  prepare  a  denunciation  of  the  intoler¬ 
ant  doctrines  contained  in  the  Rheinish  Notes. 

Mr.  O’Connell  said,  that  on  the  last  day  of  meeting  he  gave  notice  that  he  would 
move  for  a  committee,  to  draw  up  a  disavowal  of  the  very  dangerous  and  unchari¬ 
table  doctrines  contained  in  certain  notes  to  the  Rhemish  Testament.  He  now 
rose  to  submit  that  motion  to  the  consideration  of  the  Board.  The  late  edition  of 
the  Rheimish  Testament  in  this  country  gave  rise  to  much  observation  ;  that  work 
was  denounced  by  Dr.  Troy ;  an  action  is  now  depending  between  him  and  a  re¬ 
spectable  bookseller  in  this  city ;  and  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Board  not  to  in- 


168 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


terfei’e,  in  the  remotest  degree,  with  the  subject  of  that  action,  but,  on  Ihe  othei 
hand,  the  Board  could  not  let  the  present  opportimity  pass  by  of  recording  their 
sentiments  of  disapprobation,  and  even' of  abhorrence  of  the  bigoted  and  intoler¬ 
ant  doctrines  promulgated  in  that  work.  Their  feelings  of  what  was  wise,  consis¬ 
tent,  and  liberal,  would  suggest  sucli  a  proceeding,  even  thoup-h  the  indecent  cal¬ 
umnies  of  their  enemies  had  not  rendered  it  indispensible.  A  work  called  llie 
British  Critic,  had,  no  doubt,  been  read  by  some  gentlemen  who  heard  him.  The 
circulation  of  the  last  number  has  been  very  extensive,  and  exceeded,  almost  be¬ 
yond  circulation,  the  circulation  of  any  former  number,  in  consequence  of  an  arti¬ 
cle  whicli  appeared  in  it  on  the  late  edition  of  the  Rhemish  Testament.  He  (Mr. 
O’Connell)  said  he  read  that  article  ;  it  is  extremely  unfair  and  uncandid  ;  it  gives 
with  audacious  falsehood,  passages,  as  if  from  the  notes  of  the  Rlieimish  Testa¬ 
ment,  which  cannot  be  found  in  that  work ;  and,  with  mean  cunning,  it  seeks  to 
avoid  detection  by  quoting,  without  giving  either  text  or  i:)age.  Throughout,  it  is 
written  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  inquisition,  it  is  violent,  vindictive,  and  uncharita¬ 
ble.  He  was  sorry  to  understand  that  it  was  written  by  ministers  of  the  Estab¬ 
lished  Church ;  but  he  trusted,  that  when  the  charge  of  intemperance  should  be 
again  brought  forward  against  the  Catholics,  their  accusers  would  cast  their  eyes 
on  this  coarse  and  illiberal  attack — here  they  may  find  a  specimen  of  real  intemper¬ 
ance.  But  the  very  acceptable  w'ork  of  imputing  principles  to  the  Irish  people 
which  they  never  held,  and  which  they  abhor,  w'as  not  confined  to  The  British 
Critic.  The  Courier,  a  newspaper  whose  circulation  is  immense,  lent  its  hand,  and 
the  provincial  newspapers  throughout  England — those  jiapers  which  are  forever 
silent  when  anything  might  be  said  favorable  to  Ireland,  but  are  ever  active  to  dis¬ 
seminate  whatever  may  tend  to  her  disgrace  or  dishonor.  They  have  not  hesitated 
to  impute  to  the  Catholics  of  this  country  the  doctrines  contained  in  those  offen¬ 
sive  notes — and  it  was  their  duty  to  disclaim  them.  Nothing  was  more  remote 
from  the  true  sentiments  of  the  Irish  people.  These  notes  were  of  English  growth  ; 
they  were  written  in  agitated  times,  when  the  title  of  Elizabeth  was  questioned, 
on  the  grounds  of  legitimacy.  Party  spirit  was  then  extremely  violent :  politics 
mixed  with  religion,  and,  of  course,  disgraced  it.  Queen  Mary,  of  Scotland,  had 
active  partisans,  who  thought  it  would  forward  their  purposes  to  translate  the 
Bible,  and  add  to  it  those  obnoxious  notes.  But  very  shortly  after  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  the  College  at  Douay,  this  Rhemish  edition  was  condemned  by  all  the 
Doctors  of  that  Institution,  who,  at  the  same  time,  called  for  and  received  the  aid 
of  the  Scotch  and  Irish  Colleges.  The  book  was  thus  suppressed,  and  an  edition 
of  the  Bible,  with  notes,  was  published  at  Douay,  which  has  ever  been  since 
adopted  by  the  Catholic  Chtirch ;  so  that  they  not  only  condemned  and  suppressed 
the  Rlieimish  edition,  but  they  published  an  edition,  with  notes,  to  which  no  objec¬ 
tion  has,  or  could  be,  urged.  From  that  period  there  have  been  but  two  editions 
of  the  Rhemish  Testament ;  the  first  had  very  little  circulation  ;  the  late  one  was 
published  by  a  very  ignorant  printer  in  Cork,  a  man  of  the  name  of  M’Namara,  a 
person  who  was  not  capable  of  distinguishing  between  the  Rhemish  and  any 
other  edition  of  the  Bible.  He  took  up  the  matter  merely  as  a  speculation  in  trade. 
He  meant  to  publish  a  Catholic  Bible,  and  having  put  his  hand  upon  the  Rhemish 
edition,  he  commenced  to  print  it  in  numbers.  He  subsequently  became  bankrupt, 
and  his  property  in  this  transaction  vested  in  Mr.  Cumming,  a  respectable  book¬ 
seller  in  this  city,  who  is  either  a  Protestant  or  Presbyterian ;  but  he  carried  on 
the  work,  like  M’Namara,  merely  to  make  money  of  it,  as  a  mercantile  speculation  ; 
and  yet,  said  Mr.  O’Connell,  our  enemies  have  taken  it  up  with  avidity;  they  have 
asserted  that  the  sentiments  of  those  notes  are  cherished  by  the  Catholics  in  this 
country.  He  would  not  be  surprised  to  read  of  speeches  in  the  next  Parliament 
on  the  subject.  It  was  a  hundred  to  one  but  that  some  of  our  briefless  barristers 
have  already  commenced  composing  their  didl  calumnies,  and  that  we  shall  have 
speeches  from  them,  for  the  edification  of  the  Legislature,  and  the  protection  of 
the  Church.  There  was  not  a  moment  to  be  lost — the  Catholics  should,  with  one 
voice,  disclaim  those  veiy  odious  doctrines.  He  was  sure  there  was  not  a  single 
Catholic  in  Ireland  that  did  not  feel  as  he  did,  abhorrence  at  the  principles  these 
notes  contain,  llliberality  has  been  attributed  to  the  Irish  people,  but  they  are 
grossly  wronged.  He  had  often  addressed  the  Catholic  people  of  Ireland,  He 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


169 


always  found  them  applaud  every  sentiment  of  liberality,  and  the  doctrine  of  per¬ 
fect  freedom  of  conscience ;  the  right  of  every  human  being  to  have  his  religious 
creed,  whatever  that  creed  miglit  be,  unpolluted  by  the  impious  interference  of 
bigoted  or  oppressive  laws.  Those  sacred  rights,  and  that  generous  sentiment, 
were  never  uttered  at  a  Catholic  aggregate  meeting,  without  receiving  at  the  in¬ 
stant  the  loud  and  the  unanimous  applause  of  the  assembly. 

“  It  might  be  said  that  those  meetings  were  composed  of  mere  rabble.  Well,  be 
it  so.  For  one,  he  should  concede  that,  for  the  sake  of  argument.  -  But  what  fol¬ 
lowed  ?  Why,  just  this : — that  the  Catholic  rabble,  without  the  advantages  of 
education,  or  of  the  influence  of  polished  society,  were  so  well  acquainted  with 
the  genuine  principles  of  Christian  charity,  that  they,  the  rabble,  adopted  and  ap¬ 
plauded  sentiments  of  liberality,  and  of  religious  freedom,  which,  unfortunately, 
met  but  little  encouragement  from  the  polished  and  educated  of  other  sects.” 

(Then  follows  the  passage  which  we  have  quoted  in  the  preceding  article.) 

“  Mr.  C’ConneH’s  motion  was  put  and  carried,  the  words  being  amended  thus ; 

“  ‘  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  draw  up  an  address  on  the  occasion  of  the 
late  publication  of  the  Rhemish  Testament,  with  a  view  to  have  the  same  submit¬ 
ted  to  an  aggregate  meeting.’  ” 

Such,  sir,  are  the  history  and  the  authority  of  the  notes  put  to 
the  Rhemish  translation  of  the  New  Testament.  The  denuncia¬ 
tion  of  Dr.  Troy  spoiled  the  sale  of  the  work  in  Ireland,  and  the 
publisher  sent  the  remaining  copies  for  sale  to  this  country  ;  but 
even  this  did  not  remunerate  him,  as  his  loss  was  estimated  at 
<£500  sterling.  It  must  have  been  from  one  of  these  exiled  copies, 
that  the  Protestant  edition,  published  in  this  city,  now  produced, 
was  taken.  These  being  the  facts  of  the  case,  if  I  were  a  Protest¬ 
ant,  I  should  feel  ashamed  of  a  clergyman  of  my  church,  who,  from 
either  malice  or  ignorance,  should  take  up  such  a  book,  with  the  un¬ 
christian  view  of  blackening  the  character  of  any  denomination  of 
my  fellow  citizens.  But  not  only  this,  sir,  but  look  at  the  array  of 
the  names  of  Protestant  ministers,  in  this  city,  certifying,  contrary 
to  the  fixct,  that  this  text  and  these  notes  are  by  the  authority  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  then  say,  whether  there  is  no  prejudice 
against  the  Catholics  !  I  shall  now  dismiss  the  subject. 

Sir,  the  Methodist  gentleman,  in  the  whole  of  his  address,  in 
which  he  made  the  charge  I  have  now  disposed  of,  and  of  which  I 
wish  him  joy,  slyly  changed  the  nature  and  bearing  of  my  lan¬ 
guage  ill  the  remarks  I  made  last  evening.  For  instance,  respecting 
Purgatory,  of  which  I  observed  if  they  were  not  satisfied  with  our 
Purgatory  and  wished  to  go  further,  they  might  prove  the  truth  of 
the  proverb,  which  says  they  may  “go  farther  and  fare  worse.” 
He  said  I  “  sent  ”  them  farther.  But  that  corresponds  with  the  rest. 
I  did  not  send  them  farther.  I  here  disavow  such  feelings  in  the  name 
of  human  nature,  and  of  that  venerable  religion  which  I  profess. 

But  he  has  seen  that  “  betting,”  as  he  was  pleased  to  call  it,  is  a 
sin,  because  forsooth,  “  he  would  get  my  money  without  an  equiva¬ 
lent.”  Now  I  think  he  suspected  the  contrary.  But  I  did  not  pro¬ 
pose  betting,  llis  calumny  had  taken  me  by  surprise  ;  but  was  it 
not  fortunate,  almost  providential,  that  I  had  at  hand  a  direct  refu¬ 
tation,  for  if  his  charge  had  gone  abroad  uncontradicted,  the  igno¬ 
rant  or  bigoted  would  have  taken  it  on  his  authority,  and  quoted  it 
with  as  much  assurance  as  he  uM  on  that  of  the  British  Critic — 


170 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


and  for  the  same  unholy  pui'pose.  He  took  me,  I  say,  at  an  unfair 
moment,  and  then  it  was,  I  stated,  that  if  the  gentleman  could 
prove  his  charge — there  were  gentlemen  here  who  had  confidence 
in  my  word,  and  I  said  I  would  pledge  myself  to  forfeit  llOOO  to 
be  distributed  in  charities  to  the  poor,  as  this  council  might  direct, 
provided  he  would  agree  to  the  same  forfeiture,  if  he  failed  to  prove 
it.  This  is  not  betting. 

He  says  that  his  Church  has  taught  him  the  sinfulness  of  betting. 
But  this  did  not  deserve  that  name.  It  was  only  an  ordeal,  to  test, 
his  confidence  in  the  veracity  of  the  slander  contained  in  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Remonstrance.  I  may  not,  indeed,  have  the  same  scruples 
about  what  he  calls  gambling,  that  he  has  ;  but  I  do  remember, 
what  he  seems  to  have  forgotten,  that  there  is  a  precept  of  the 
Decalogue — a  commandment  of  the  living  God,  which  says  :  “  Thou 
shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor.” 

I  now  pass  to  another  portion  of  this  gentleman’s  remarks.  He 
contends  that  it  is  impossible  to  furnish  reading  lessons  from  history 
for  the  last  ten  centuries,  without  producing  what  must  be  offensive 
to  Catholics.  The  history  of  Catholics  is  so  black,  that  the  Public 
Schools  could  not,  in  his  view,  find  a  solitary  bright  page  to  refresh 
the  eye  of  the  Catholic  children.  This  is  set  forth  in  the  Remon¬ 
strance  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  this  the  reverend 
gentleman  undertook  to  support  in  his  speech.  He  said  that  history 
must  not  be  falsified  for  our  accommodation.  That  the  black  and 
insulting  passages  against  us  and  our  religion,  placed  in  the  hands 
of  our  children  at  the  Public  Schools,  were  not  to  be  charged  as  a 
defect  in  the  system — inasmuch  as  the  Trustees  could  find  worse, 
but  would  be  obliged  to  falsify  history  itself  to  find  better.  From 
this  defence  you  can  judge  what  confidence  Catholics  can  place  in 
this  society,  or  in  the  schools  under  their  charge. 

I  contended  that  there  existed  portions  of  history  eminently  hon¬ 
orable  to  Catholics.  But,  says  he,  “history  is  philosophy,  teaching 
by  example — the  good  and  the  bad  must  be  taken  together.”  Then 
how  does  it  happen  that  the  bad  alone  is  presented  in  the  Public 
Schools  ?  Besides,  if  all  the  good  and  all  the  bad  which  history 
ascribes  to  Catholics  must  be  presented,  it  would  make  a  library 
rather  large  for  a  class-book  in  the  Public  Schools.  Hence  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  a  selection ;  and  how  is  it,  that  in  the  selection  the  bad  is 
brought  out,  and  the  good  passed  over  in  silence  as  if  it  did  not 
exist  ?  Why  is  tlie  burning  of  Huss  selected  ?  Why  the  burning 
of  Cranmer  ?  Why  are  our  children  taught  in  the  face  of  all  sense  and 
decency,  that  Martin  Luther  did  more  for  learning,  than  any  other 
man  “  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles !”  Why  is  “  Phelim  Maghee  ” 
represented  as  “  sealing  his  soul  with  a  wafer,” — in  contempt  to  the 
holiest  mystery  known  to  Catholics,  the  Sacred  Eucharist  ?  Why 
are  intemperance  and  vice  set  forth  as  the  necessary  and  natural 
effects  of  the  Catholic  Religion  ?  All  this  put  in  the  hands  of  Catho¬ 
lic  children,  by  this  society,  claiming  to  deserve  the  confidence  of 
Cathohc  parents ! 


BEFORE  THE  CITT  COUNCIL. 


171 


Now  the  Methodist  gentleman  says  that  all  this  is  right — that  the 
Trustees  could  not  possibly,  within  the  last  ten  centuries,  find  history 
which  would  not  be  offensive  to  Catholics — and  that  to  make  it 
otherwise,  it  must  be  falsified.  Now,  sir,  I  should  like  to  know, 
whether  it  can  be  expected  that  we  should  have  any  confidence  in 
schools,  for  the  support  of  which  Ave  are  taxed,  in  Avhich  our  re¬ 
ligious  feelings  are  insulted,  our  children  peiwerted,  and  AA'hose  adAm 
cates  tell  us  gravely  that  we  ought  to  be  satisfied  that  things  can¬ 
not  be  otherwise,  unless  history  is  to  be  falsified  for  our  convenience ! 
To  this  Ave  never  shall  consent !  Religious  intolerance  has  done 
much  to  degrade  us,  and  its  most  dangerous  instrument  was  depriv¬ 
ing  us  of  education. 

The  gentleman  (Dr.  Bond)  has  corrected  some  of  my  remarks  of 
last  evening,  on  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  fact  is,  the 
style  of  Remonstrance  presented  here,  as  emanating  from  that 
Church,  imposed  on  me  the  necessity  of  alluding  to  the  history  and 
principles  of  that  denomination.  It  is  unpleasant  to  me,  at  any  time, 
to  use  language  calculated  to  Avound  the  feelings  of  any  sect  or  class 
of  my  felloAV  citizens.  But  they  Avho  offer  the  unprovoked  insult, 
must  not  complain  of  the  retort.  I  stated  that  the  Methodists  in 
England  had  never  done  a  solitary  act  to  aid  in  the  s])i-ead  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty  in  that  country ;  that  Avhilst  the  Catliolics 
aided  the  Dissenters  in  obtaining  the  repeal  to  the  Test  and  Corpo¬ 
ration  Acts,  the  Methodists  never  contributed  to  that  measure,  by 
so  much  as  one  petition  in  its  favor.  But  it  appears  I  fell  into  a 
mistake,  which  the  gentleman  corrected  Avith  great  precision  and 
gravity.  The  “  Methodist  Society,”  in  England,  he  tells  us,  is  some¬ 
thing  quite  different  from  the  “  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  in 
the  United  States.  The  former  consider  themselves  only  as  a  society 
in  the  Established  Church,  just  as  the  religious  orders,  the  Domi¬ 
nicans,  Jesuits,  &c.,  are  in  the  Catholic  communion.  Certainly  it 
is  neAV  to  me  to  learn  that  the  Methodists  and  the  Church  of 
England  are  in  such  close  and  affectionate  spiritual  relationship. 
For  although  the  Methodists  consider  themsehms  a  society  within 
the  pale  of  the  Establishment,  the  members  of  the  Established 
Church  are  quite  of  a  different  opinion,  since  it  Avas  only  the  other 
day  that  I  read  of  a  Presbyter  of  that  Church  having  been  susjiend- 
ed  by  his  Bishop,  for  having  preached  in  a  Methodist  Meeting¬ 
house  !  So  that  the  affection  of  the  Methodists  for  the  Church  of 
England,  does  not  appear  to  be  very  cordially  reci2)rocated. 

This  gentleman  tells  us  that  the  Methodists,  Avho  are  only  a 

Society  ”  in  England,  are  an  “  EjjiscojAal  Church  in  America.” 
Yes,  sir,  Mr.  Wesley,  Avho  Avas  himself  but  a  Priest,  actually  conse¬ 
crated  a  Bishop  for  the  United  States  !  And  hence  the  Methodist 
E'piscopal  Church — a  new  order  of  Episcoj^acy,  deriving  their  au¬ 
thority  and  character  from  Mr.  John  Wesley,  a  mere  Priest.  But, 
with  or  Avithout  Bishops,  their  Avhole  history  proA^es  how  much 
they  imbibed  of  the  intolerance  of  the  established  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  to  which  he  tells  us  they  are  so  intimately  allied  in  that  coun- 


172 


AECHBISIIOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


try,  bu  t  which  at  all  times  spurns  the  connection.  This  same  John 
Wesley  held  and  wrote  that  no  government  ought  to  grant  tolera¬ 
tion  to  Catholics  ;  because,  forsooth,  either  from  ignorance  of  Catho¬ 
lic  doctrines  or  bigotry  against  them,  he  was  pleased  to  believe  and 
assert  falsely  that  they  held  it  lawful  to  murder  heretics.  When 
the  government  of  Great  Britain  was  about  to  mitigate  the  code  of 
penal  laws  and  persecution  against  the  Catholics,  in  1780,  Avho  was 
more  fervent  and  fanatical  in  opposition  to  the  exercise  of  mercy 
than  John  Wesley  ?  The  great  object  of  the  Protestant  Association, 
headed  by  Lord  George  Gordon,  was  to  oppose  the  least  mitig.ation 
of  severity.  Who  was  more  active  in  the  intellectual  operations  of 
that  society  than  Mr.  John  Wesley?  Under  the  leadership  of  Lord 
George  Gordon  they  raised  a  rebellion  in  that  year,  and  when  the 
mob  had  plundered,  destroyed,  and  burnt  the  houses  and  churches 
of  the  Catholics,  spread  consternation  throughout  the  city  of  Lon¬ 
don,  and  caused  human  blood  to  flow  in  torrents,  we  have  this  same 
Wesley,  with  sanctimonious  gravity,  charging  it  all  on  the  Catho¬ 
lics — the  victims  of  its  fury — and  contending  that  it  was  a  “  Popish 
jflot.”  His  services  in  that  Association  had  been  acknowledged  by 
a  unanimous  vote  of  thanks^  dated  February  17th  -of  that  very  year. 
This  was  in  1780 — when  the  mighty  events  which  had  occurred  in 
this  country  taught  the  British  government  the  expediency  of  relax¬ 
ing  the  penal  laws  against  so  large  a  portion  of  her  subjects  in 
England  and  Ireland.  The  rebound  of  those  events  had  been  felt 
throughout  the  world.  They  were  the  events  created  and  accom¬ 
plished  by  the  great  fathers  of  this  Republic,  then  struggling  into 
existence;  and  whilst  Catholics  and  Protestants  fought  bravely 
side  by  side  in  the  ranks  of  independence — while  a  Catholic  Carroll 
was  signing  its  charter,  and  another  Carroll,  a  Priest,  and  (tell  it 
not  in  Gath)  a  Jesuit,  was  employed  on  an  embassy  to  render  the 
population  of  Canada  friendly,  or  at  least  not  hostile  to  our  strug¬ 
gle  ;  whilst  a  Catholic  Commodore,  Barry,  was  doing  the  office  of  a 
founder  and  father  to  our  young  and  gallant  Uavy,  what  was  John 
W esley  doing  ?  He  was  creeping  to  the  British  throne  to  lay  at 
the  feet  of  His  Majesty’s  government  the  offer  to  raise  a  regiment 
and  j)ut  them  at  the  disposal  of  the  crowm,  expressly  to  put  down 
what  he  called  the  “  American  Rebellion to  crush  the  rising  lib¬ 
erties  of  your  infant  country ! 

Now,  sir,  I  think  I  was  authorized  to  state  that  the  Methodists 
have  done  as  little  for  the  sj^read  of  human  liberty,  the  rights  and 
equality  of  mankind,  as  any  other  denomination^ — no  matter  how 
old  or  how  young.  If  they  have  not  done  extensive  mischief,  of 
which  the  gentleman  boasts,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  they  never 
possessed  sujjreme  civil  power,  and  that  in  the  order  of  time  they 
have  been  too  insignificant,  and  are  still  too  juvenile  to  have  done 
extensive  evil.  If  they  have  done  private  good,  as  the  gentleman 
contends,  I  confess  it  reminds  me  of  Stephen  Girard’s  charity.  He 
was  exceedingly  rich ;  and  because  he  was  rich,  people  thought  he 
was  very  wise.  And  inasmuch  as  he  despised  all  external  show  of 


BEFOEE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


173 


religion,  it  was  inferred  he  was  very  charitable  to  the  poor,  without, 
however  making  a  display  of  it.  If  it  was  so,  no  man  ever  prac¬ 
ticed  better  the  counsel  of  the  Gospel,  “  not  to  let  the  left  hand 
know  what  the  right  hand  doeth  ”  in  the  matter.  It  was  so  private 
that  no  one  ever  could  find  it  out.  So  it  is  with  the  Methodist 
Church  with  regard  to  any  public  benefit  ever  conferred  on  man¬ 
kind  ;  Ave  have  yet  to  hear  of  it. 

I  will  noAV  satisfy  the  gentleman  on  another  subject  which  seems 
to  trouble  him,  and  on  which  he  “  should  like  to  know.”  And  as 
other  gentlemen  have  alluded  to  it,  I  hope  the  same  explanation 
will  suffice  in  reply  to  them  all. 

Before  the  British  government  released  the  Catholics  from  the 
penalties  under  which  they  labored,  among  which  not  the  least  was 
the  exclusion  of  the  schoolmaster,  they  called  upon  them  to  disavow 
principles  which  they  kneiv  Catholics  did  not  entertain.  But  in 
order  to  reconcile  the  prejudices  of  the  English  people,  they  had  an 
investigation  of  those  imputed  principles  before  the  houses  of  Par¬ 
liament  ;  they  called  upon  some  distinguished  Catholic  citizens  and 
questioned  them  on  several  points  such  as  those  the  gentleman  has 
so  frequently  referred  to,  among  which  was  the  spiritual  authority 
of  the  Pope.  From  the  testimony  which  they  took  I  now  quote. 
It  is  part  of  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Doyle,  Bishop  of  Kildare; ’but 
other  bishops  and  public  men  were  all  examined  on  the  same 
subject. 

Question.  “  According  to  the  principles  which  govern  the  Ro¬ 
man  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland,  has  the  Pope  any  authority  to 
issue  commands,  ordinances,  or  injunctions,  general  or  special,  with¬ 
out  the  consent  of  the  King?” 

Answer.  “  He  has.” 

“  Question.  “  If  he  should  issue  such  orders,  are  the  subjects  of 
His  Majesty,  particularly  the  clergy,  bound  to  obey  them  ?” 

Answer.  “  The  orders  that  he  has  a  right  to  issue  must  regard 
things  that  are  of  a  spiritual  nature  ;  and  when  Ins  commands  re¬ 
gard  such  things,  the  clergy  are  bound  to  obey  them ;  but  Avere  he 
to  issue  commands  regarding  things  not  spiritual,  the  clergy  are  not 
in  anyAvise  bound  to  obey  them.” 

Consequently,  if  His  Holiness,  as  the  gentleman,  Mr.  Ketchum, 
said,  should  forbid  the  reading  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
it  would  not  be  of  any  authority. 

Mr.  Ketciiuai.  Does  the  book  say  so  ? 

Bishop  Hughes.  I  am  authority  myself  in  matters  of  my  reli¬ 
gion.  Surely,  sir,  I  am  not  here  to  betray  it ;  and  I  am  astonished 
that  the  gentleman  is  not  better  acquainted  with  history  on  the 
matter.  He  amused  us  a  little  Avhile  ago  with  the  idea  of  Avhat  ter¬ 
rible  consequences  might  ensue  if  the  Pope,  a  “foreign  potentate,” 
should  forbid  us  to  read  the  Declaration  of  Independence ;  or  forbid 
the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  our  Common  Schools.  He  even  apolo¬ 
gized  for  his  alarm  Avith  singular  simplicity ;  “  he  meant  no  reflec¬ 
tion.  This  matter  had  come  out  in  evidence  here.”  It  Avas  then, 


174 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOIfD  SPEECH 


sir,  I  wondered  at  his  not  having  read  history,  or  having  read  it  to 
so  little  advantage. 

Did  he  not  know  that,  long  before  the  Declaration  of  Indepen¬ 
dence,  Venice  rose  out  of  the  sea,  a  Catholic  State,  with  all  her  re¬ 
publican  glory  round  about  her  ?  A.nd  when  the  Pope,  in  his  capa¬ 
city  of  “foreign  potentate,”  attempted  to  invade  her  temporal 
rights,  her  Catholic  sons  did  what  they  ought  to  have  done,  they 
unsheathed  their  swords  and  routed  his  troops.  Did  they  thereby 
forfeit  their  allegiance  to  him  as  spiritual  Head  of  the  Church  on 
earth  ?  Not  an  iota  of  it.  To  a  man  who  reads  history,  and  under*, 
stands  it,  this  fact  alone  points  out  the  ditference,  in  the  creed  of 
Catholics,  between  the  Pope  and  the  potentate.  The  Venetians 
knew  that  the  Pope,  in  his  spiritual  capacity,  belongs  to  a  kingdom 
which  is  not  of  this  world.  And  the  allegiance  of  Catholics  to  him, 
out  of  his  own  small  dominions,  is  due  to  him  only  in  his  spiritual 
capacity.  Whatever  temporal  right  was  acquired  over  independent 
states  by  the  Popes  in  former  ages,  was  owing  to  no  principle  of 
Catholic  doctrine,  but  purely  to  the  disorders  of  the  times  and  the 
pusillanimity  of  weak  rulers,  who,  in  order  to  secure  the  Pope’s  pro¬ 
tection,  made  themselves  his  vassals.  The  Popes,  in  such  circum¬ 
stances,  would  have  been  more  or  less  than  men,  had  they  refused 
to  embrace  these  opportunities  of  aggrandizement  so  placed  within 
their  reach,  and  often  pressed  upon  them.  Now  every  Catholic  is 
familiar  Avith  tins  vieAV  of  the  subject,  and  yet,  except  a  few  of  larger 
minds  and  better  education,  it  has  hardly  penetrated  the  density  of 
Protestant  prejudice.  Hence  you  hear  them  giving  the  most  ab¬ 
surd  construction  to  the  duties  of  Catholics  between  the  supposed 
contiicting  claims  of  their  country  and  the  imputed  principles  of 
their  religion.  Permit  me  here  to  call  your  attention  to  the  true 
and  beautiful  exposition  of  the  case  as  set  forth  in  the  language  of  a 
gentleman  Avho,  though  a  Catholic,  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  man  of 
as  high  honor,  as  lofty  and  patriotic  2irinciples,  and  as  unblemished 
a  character,  as  any  man  the  nation  can  boast  of:  I  mean  Judge 
Gaston,  of  North  Carolina.  The  State  has  no  son  of  whom  she  is, 
or  ought  to  be,  prouder.  And  yet,  up  till  within  a  few  years,  the 
laws  of  that  State  disqualified  a  Catholic  from  holding  any,  even  the 
office  of  a  constable.  In  a  s^ieech  made  by  Judge  Gaston,  in  the 
Convention  for  revising  the  State  Constitution,  in  reference  to  this 
matter,  he  says : 

“  But  it  has  been  objected,  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  unfavorable  to  freedom  ; 
nay,  even  incompatible  with  republican  institutions.  Ingenious  speculations  on 
such  matters  are  worth  little,  and  jwove  still  less.  Let  me  ask  who  obtained  the 
great  charter  of  English  freedom  but  the  Catholic  prelates  and  barons  at  Itunny- 
mede  ?  The  oldest,  the  purest  democracy  on  earth  is  the  little  Catholic  republic 
of  San  Marino,  not  a  day’s  journey'  from  Rome.  It  has  existed  now  for  fourteen 
hundred  years,  and  is  so  jealous  of  arbitrary  power,  that  the  executive  authority 
is  divided  between  two  Governors,  who  are  elected  every  three  months.  Was 
William  Tell,  the  founder  of  Swiss  liberty,  a  royalist  ?  Are  the  Catholics  of  the 
Swiss  cantons  in  love  Avitli  tyranny?  Are  the  Irish  Catholics  friends  to  passive 
obedience  and  non-resistance  ?  Was  Lafay'ette,  Pulaski,  or  Kosciusko,  a  foe  to 
civil  freedom  ?  Was  Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrollton,  unwilling  to  jeopard  fortune  in 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


175 


the  caiasc  of  liberty  ?  Lei  me  give  yoti,  however,  the  testimony  of  George  Wash¬ 
ington.  On  his  accession  to  the  Presidency,  he  was  addressed  by  the  American 
Catholics,  who,  adverting  to  the  restrictions  on  their  worship  tlien  existing  in  some 
of  the  States,  expressed  themselves  thus:  ‘The  prospect  of  national  prosperity  is 
peculiarly  pleasing  to  us  on  another  account ;  because,  while  our  country  preserves 
her  freedom  and  independence,  we  shall  have  well  founded  title  to  claim  from  her 
justice  the  equal  rights  of  citizenship  as  the  price  of  our  blood  spilt  under  your 
eye,  and  of  our  common  exertions  for  her  defence,  under  your  auspicious  conduct.’ 
This  great  man,  who  was  utterly  incapable  of  flattery  and  deceit,  utters,  in  answer, 
the  following  sentiments,  which  I  give  in  his  own  words :  ‘  As  mankind  becoiwr 
more  liberal,  they  will  be  more  apt  to  allow  that  all  those  who  conduct  themselves 
as  worthy  members  of  the  community  are  equally  entitled  to  the  protection  of 
civil  government.  I  hope  ever  to  see  America  among  the  foremost  nations  in 
examples  of  justice  and  liberality;  and  I  presume  that  your  fellow-citizens  will 
never  forget  the  patriotic  part  which  you  took  in  the  accomplishment  of  their  rev¬ 
olution,  and  the  establishment  of  their  government,  or  the  important  assistance 
which  they  received  from  a  nation  in  which  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  is  professed.’ 
By  the  by,  sir,  I  would  pause  for  a  moment  to  call 'the  attention  of  this  committee 
to  some  of  the  names  svabscribed  to  this  address.  Among  them  are  those  of  John 
Carroll,  the  first  Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  the  United  States ;  Charles  Carroll,  of 
Carrollton,  and  Thomas  Fitzsimmons.  For  the  characters  of  these  distinguished 
men,  if  they  needed  vouchers,  I  would  confidently  call  on  the  venerable  President 
of  this  Convention.  Bishop  Carroll  was  one  of  the  best  men  and  most  humble  and 
devout  of  Christians.  I  shall  never  forget  a  tribute  to  his  memory  paid  by  the  good 
and  venerable  Protestant  Bishop  Wliite,  when  contrasting  the  piety  with  which 
the  C  hristian  Carroll  met  death,  with  the  cold  trifling  that  characterized  the  last 
moments  of  the  skeptical  David  Hume.  1  know  not  whether  the  tribute  was  more 
honorable  to  the  piety  of  the  dead,  or  to  the  charity  of  the  living  prelate.  Charles 
Carroll,  of  Carrollton,  the  last  survivor  of  the  signers  of  American  Indepen¬ 
dence — at  whose  deatli  both  houses  of  the  Legislature  of  North  Carolina  unan¬ 
imously  testified  their  sorrow,  as  at  a  national  bereavement !  Thomas  Fitzsim¬ 
mons,  one  of  the  illustrious  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  for  several  years  the  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  city  of  Phila- 
delpliia.  Were  these,  and  such  as  these,  foes  to  freedom  and  unfit  for  republican¬ 
ism  ?  Would  it  be  dangerous  to  permit  such  men  to  be  sheriffs  and  constables  in 
the  land  ?  Read  the  funeral  eulogium  of  Charles  Carroll,  delivered  at  Rome  by 
Bishop  England — one  of  the  greatest  ornaments  of  the  American  Catholic  Cliurch 
— a  foreigner,  indeed,  by  birth,  but  an  American  by  adoption,  and  who  becoming 
an  American,  solemn^  abjured  all  allegiance  to  every  foreign  king,  prince,  and 
potentate  whatever — that  eulogium  which  was  so  much  cai’ped  at  by  English  roy¬ 
alists  and  English  tories — and  I  think  j’ou  will  find  it  democratic  enough  to  suit 
the  taste  and  find  an  echo  in  the  heart  of  the  sternest  republican  amongst  us. 
Catholics  are  of  all  countries,  of  all  governments,  of  all  political  creeds.  In  all  they 
are  taught  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  not  of  this  woi-ld,  and  that  it  is  their  duty 
to  render  unto  Caisar  the  things  that  are  Caesar’s,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God’s.” 

I  shall  now  proceed  with  the  testimony  of  the  Irish  Bishops  m 
order,  which  was  interrupted  by  the  gentleman’s  question. 

Here,  sir,  is  the  testimony  of  another  bishop — Dr.  Murray,  the 
present  Archbishop  of  Dublin — before  a  Committee  of  the  British 
Parliament. 

“  To  what  extent  and  in  what  manner  does  a  Catholic  profess  to  obey  tbe  Pope  ? 
— Solely  in  spiritual  matters,  or  in  such  mixed  matters  as  come  under  his  govern¬ 
ment  ;  such  as  marriage,  for  instance,  which  we  hold  to  bo  a  sacrament  as  well  as 
a  civil  contract.  As  it  is  a  sacrament,  it  is  a  spiritual  thing,  and  comes  under  the 

{‘urisdiction  of  the  Pope ;  of  course  he  has  authority  over  that  spiritual  i)art  of  it; 
)ut  this  authority  does  not  affect  the  civil  rights  of  the  individuals  contracling. 


176 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


“  Does  tills  obedience  detract  from  wbat  is  due  by  a  Catholic  to  the  State  under 
wiiich  he  lives  ? — Not  in  the  least ;  the  powers  are  wholly  distinct. 

“  Does  it  justify  an  objection  that  is  made  to  Catholics,  that  their  allegiance  is 
divided  ? — Their  allegiance  in  civil  matters  is  completely  undivided. 

“  Is  the  duty  which  the  Catholic  owes  to  the  Poiie,  and  the  duty  which  he  owes 
to  the  King,  really  and  substantially  distinct? — Wholly  distinct ! 

“  How  far  is  the  claim,  that  some  Popes  have  set  up  to  Temporal  Authority, 
opposed  to  Scripture  and  Tradition  ? — As  far  as  it  may  have  been  exercised  as 
coming  from  a  right  granted  to  him  by  God,  it  appears  to  me  to  be  contrary  to 
Scripture  and  tradition;  but  as  far  as  it  may  have  been  exercised  in  consequence 
of  a  right  conferred  on  bim  by  the  different  Christian  powers,  who  looked  up  to 
him  at  one  time  as  the  great  parent  of  Christendom,  who  appointed  him  as  the 
arbitrator  of  their  concerns,  many  of  whom  submitted  their  kingdoms  to  him,  and 
laid  them  at  his  feet,  consenting  to  receive  them  back  from  him  as  fiefs,  the  case 
is  dift'erent.  The  power  that  he  exercised  under  that  authority  of  course  passed 
away  when  those  temporal  princes  who  granted  it  chose  to  withdraw  it.  His 
spiritual  jiower  does  not  allow  him  to  dethrone  kings,  or  to  absolve  their  subjects 
from  the  allegiance  due  to  them ;  and  any  attempt  of  that  kind  I  would  consider 
contrary  to  Scripture  and  tradition. 

“  Does  the  Pope  now  dispose  of  temporal  affairs  within  the  kingdoms  of  any  of 
the  princes  of  the  Continent  ? — Not  that  I  am  aware  of ;  I  am  sure  he  does  not. 

“  Do  the  Catholic  clergy  admit  that  all  the  bulls  of  the  Pope  are  entitled  to  obe¬ 
dience  ? — They  are  entitled  to  a  certain  degree  of  reverence.  If  not  contrary 
to  our  usages,  or  contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  of  course  they  are  entitled  to 
obedience,  as  coming  from  a  superior.  We  owe  obedience  to  a  parent,  we 
owe  obedience  to  the  king,  we  owe  it  to  the  law;  but  if  a  parent,  the  king,  or  the 
law,  were  to  order  us  to  do  anything  that  is  wrong,  we  would  deem  it  a  duty  to 
say,  as  the  Apostles  did  on  another  occasion,  ‘  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men.’ 

“  Are  there  circumstances  under  which  the  Catholic  clergy  would  not  obey  a  bull 
of  the  Pope  ? — Most  certainly, 

“  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  following  words,  in  the  creed  of  Pius  IV. :  ‘  I 
promise  and  swear  true  obedience  to  the  Roman  bishop,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter?’ — 
Canonical  obedience,  in  the  manner  I  have  just  described,  within  the  sphere  of  his 
own  authority. 

“  What  do  the  principles  of  the  Catholic  religion  teach,  in  respect  to  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  civil  duties  ? — They  teach  that  the  performance  of  civil  duties  is  a  consci¬ 
entious  obligation  which  the  law  of  God  imposes  on  us. 

“  Is  the  divine  law  then  quite  clear,  as  to  the  allegiance  due  by  subjects  to  their 
prince  ? — Quite  clear. 

“  In  what  books  are  to  be  found  the  most  authentic  exposition  of  the  Faith  of  the 
Catholic  Church  ? — In  that  very  creed  that  has  been  mentioned,  the  creed  of  Pius 
IV. ;  in  the  Catechism  which  was  published  by  the  direction  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  called  ‘  The  Roman  Catechism,’  or  ‘  The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent ;’ 
‘  An  Exposition  of  the  Catholic  Faith,  by  the  Bishop  of  Meaux,  Bossuet ;’  ‘  Verron’s 
Rule  of  Faith ;’  '  Holden’s  Analysis  of  Faith’  and  several  others.” 

Such  is  the  character  and  limitation  of  the  Pope’s  authority,  at¬ 
tested  under  oath,  by  bishops  and  other  Catholic  dignitaries  before 
the  British  Parliament.  The  Catholics  of  Great  Bidtain  and  Ireland 
had  been  bowed  down  to  the  earth,  by  penal  laws  and  persecution, 
during  three  hundred  years — with  nothing  between  them  and  the 
enjoyment  of  all  their  rights,  but  the  solemnity  of  an  oath.  If  their 
conscience  had  permitted  them  to  swear  what  they  did  not  believe, 
they  might  have  entered  on  their  political  rights  at  any  time,  and 
yet  as  martyrs  to  the  sacredness  of  conscience  they  resisted. 

I  have  now,  sir,  supplied  the  reverend  gentleman,  who  presented 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


1V7 


the  remonstrance  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  all  the 
information  which  the  occasion  permits  on  the  subject  of  the  Pope’s 
authority.  But  there  is  a  good  deal  more  to  which,  if  time  allowed, 
I  might  address  myself.  He  became  very  logical,  and  insisted  on 
the  fact,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  always  the 
same,  immutable.  He  says  that  we  boast  of  this ;  and  we  do  so, 
most  assuredly.  From  the  hour  when  they  were  revealed  and  taught 
by  divine  authority  until  the  present,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting 
of  the  sun,  the  Faith  of  the  Catholic  believer,  and  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  are  everlastingly  and  universally  the  same. 
But  then  he  concludes,  that,  as  Catholics  in  some  instances  in  former 
times  persecuted,  so,  their  religion  being  always  the  same,  they  are 
still  bound  to  persecute,  or  else  disavow  the  doctrine,  as  Protestants 
do.  Now,  sir,  we  do  disavow  and  despise  the  doctrine  of  persecu¬ 
tion  in  all  its  essence  and  forms.  But  does  it  follow  that  by  this  we 
disavow  any  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  ?  By  no  means.  And 
this  proves  that  persecution  never  was  any  portion  of  the  Catholic 
faith ;  for  if  it  had  been,  the  denial  of  it  would  cut  us  olf  from  her 
communion.  The  Church  we  believe,  by  the  promise  and  superin¬ 
tendence  of  Christ,  her  invisible  liead  and  founder,  to  be  infallible. 
She  received  the  deposit  of  the  doctrines  revealed  by  our  Redeemer 
and  his  Apostles ;  her  office  is  to  witness,  teach,  and  preserve  them. 
These  alone  constitute  the  religious  creed  and  doctrines  of  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Church  and  her  members.  We  believe  in  a  Trinity,  the  Incar¬ 
nation  of  Christ,  the  Redemption  by  his  death,  the  Divine  Institution 
of  the  Church.  These  and  whatever  the  Church  holds,  as  of  Divine 
Revelation,  are  the  doctrines  of  our  Catholic  unity.  And  the  indi¬ 
vidual  who  is  now  addressing  you,  and  the  Catholic  martyr  who  is 
at  this  moment  perhaps  bleeding  for  his  faith  in  China — for  the 
Church  has  her  martyrs  still — hold  and  believe  identically  the  same 
doctrines.  But  as  there  is  unity  in  faith,  so  there  is,  in  the  Church, 
freedom  of  opinion  on  matters  which  are  not  determined  by  any 
specific  revelation.  Hence  we  are  republicans,  or  monarchists,  ac¬ 
cording  to  individual  preference,  or  the  prevailing  genius  of  -the 
country  Ave  belong  to.  Plence,  when  the  Catholic  divines  at  Rheims 
were  appending  these  notes  to  their  edition  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  Catholic  bishops  of  Poland,  Avith  her  twenty-two  millions,  were 
opening  the  doors  of  the  Constitution  to  the  fugitive  Protestants  of 
Germany,  fleeing  from  the  intolerance  and  persecution  of  their  fellow 
Protestants.  The  one  act  is  as  much  a  Catholic  doctrine  as  the  other, 
because  in  both  cases  the  agents  acted,  not  by  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  but  in  the  exercise  of  that  individual  judgment  for  which 
their  account  stands  to  God. 

But  I  must  be  brief.  I  cannot  follow  so  many  learned  speakers 
through  so  much  matter  that  is  foreign  to  the  subject ;  for  I  agree 
with  the  medical  gentleman  who  said  that  neither  the  Catholic  nor 
the  Protestant  religion  was  on  trial  here  ;  it  is  not  religious  creeds 
that  are  to  be  tested  by  this  Council.  I  have,  hoAvever,  gtten  this 
explanation,  and  I  trust  it  Avill  be  received,  though  it  may  have  been 
12 


178 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


todions,  as  having  its  apology  in  the  remai’ks  which  called,  it  forth. 
I  only  Avish  that  the  gentleman  who  made  the  observation  had 
made  it  one  hour  and  a  half  sooner ;  it  would  have  sailed  all  I  have 
said  on  the  sniiject. 

But  this  speaker  also  [Doctor  Reese],  lectured  me  for  attending 
certain  meetings,  as  if  it  were  a  descent  from  my  dignity  to  find  my¬ 
self  in  an  assembly  of  freemen.  I  did  not  consider  it  as  a  descent. 
But  really  when  I  came  here  in  the  simple  character  of  a  citizen,  I  did 
not  think  I  should  be  vested  with  my  otficial  robes  for  the  purpose 
of  being  attacked.  Individuals  as  respectable  as  he  attended  those 
meetings,  and  I  consider  it  no  disgrace  to  have  been  there  or  here ; 
for  even  if  this  petition  came  not  from  Catholics,  but  from  Metho¬ 
dists,  or  any  other  Protestant  denomination,  whose  consciences  ivere 
violated  by  this  system,  I  should  be  found  in  their  midst  supporting 
their  claim.  Let  me  add,  too,  that  I  Avmuld  rather  be  so  found,  than, 
for  all  the  exchequer  of  the  Public  School  Society,  exchange  places 
with  gentlemen,  and  have  conscience  and  right  for  my  opponents. 
He  also  contended  that  this  want  of  confidence  in  Catholics  was  the 
result  of  my  appeals,  foi'getting  that  the  state  of  things  which  is  noAV 
brought  under  public  notice  has  existed  for  years,  by  efibrts  to  pro¬ 
vide  a  safe  education  for  our  children,  long  before  those  meetings 
Avere  called,  and  before  I  attended  them.  And  besides,  I  conceive 
it  is  my  bounden  duty,  if  I  saw  principles  inculcated  Avhich  Avill  sap 
the  young  minds  of  our  children — and  I  haAm  no  doubt  this  Honora¬ 
ble  Board  will  say  it  is  my  duty — to  warn  them  and  to  bring  them 
Avithin  the  pale  of  that  authority  which  they  acknowledge.  I  won¬ 
der  if  Presbyterian  gentlemen  would  see  Catholic  books  circulated 
amongst  their  children  and  not  Avarn  their  people  against  them  ?  I 
wonder,  if  these  books  contained  reading  lessons  about  Calvin  and 
the  unhappy  burning  of  Servetus,  whether  they  would  not  warn  their 
people.  I  say,  if  they  believe  in  their  religion,  they  would  be  in  the 
discharge  of  their  duty.  And  while  on  this  subject,  it  occurs  to  me 
at  this  moment,  that  in  the  wide  range  of  observation  Avhich  has 
been  taken,  reference  has  been  made  to  national  education  in  Ire¬ 
land.  And  we  are  told  that  after  books  had  been  agreed  upon,  the 
bishops  sent  the  question  to  Rome,  to  be  decided  by  the  Pope. 
What  question?  Can  they  tell?  for  I  am  sure  I  cannot.  To  this 
day,  I  have  never  understood  the  exact  nature  of  the  reference  to 
tlie  Pope,  but,  sir,  this  is  no  extraordinary  thing.  Under  the  jealous 
eye  of  the  British  government,  even  in  the  darkest  hour  of  her  cru¬ 
elty  to  Catholics,  their  intercourse  Avith  Rome  was  not  interrupted. 
But  while  that  collection  and  compilation  of  Scripture  lessons  was 
agreed  on  in  the  more  Catholic  parts  of  the  country  Avhere  tlie  pop¬ 
ulation  is  divided  betAveen  Protestants  and  Catholic,  what  is  the 
fact  ?  Why,  in  another  part,  the  North  of  Ireland,  where  the  Pres¬ 
byterians  are  more  numerous,  they  had  conscientious  objections  to 
this  selection  of  Scripture,  they  asserted  their  objections,  and  the 
British  government  recognized  them ;  and  thus  while  these  lessons 
by  agreement  were  in  general  use,  an  exception  was  made  in  favor 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUXCIL. 


179 


of  the  Presbyterians,  who  had  objections  to  the  use  of  anything  but 
the  naked  wo]-d  of  God ;  and  I  say,  honor  to  those  Presbyterians. 
Tlie  Catholics  sent  in  no  remonstrance.  But  if  the  rule  applied  to 
their  case,  by  w’hat  authority  will  your  honorable  body  determine 
that  it  shall  not  apply  to  ours  ?  Oh  !  I  perceive.  The  gentleman, 
whose  remarks  I  am  reviewing,  reasoned  on  until  he  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  there  were  no  conscientious  grounds  for  our  objec- 
jection  at  all.  True,  we  said  we  had ;  but  he  could  not  see  what 
conscience  had  to  do  with  a  matter  so  plain.  He  said,  here  the 
community  had  built  up  a  beautiful  system ;  it  was  doing  good ;  he 
asked  shall- tve  put  it  aside  in  deference  to  pretended  scruples? 
How,  tell  me  when  the  despotism  of  intolerance  ever  said  anything 
else  than  this  ?  Why,  the  established  church  of  England  said,  “  we 
are  doing  good,”  “  our  doors  are  open  to  all,”  “  the  minister  is  at  the 
desk,  and  the  bread  of  life  is  distributed  for  the  public  good.” 
Wh.at  then?  What  business  have  these  unhappy  parents  to  find 
fault  for  conscience  sake  and  squeamishness?  Now,  sir,  objections 
can  exist  to  the  slightest  shade  of  violation  to  our  conscience,  and 
therefore,  I  did  not  expect  to  hear  this  argviment  at  this  time  of  day. 
But  the  gentleman  speaks  of  my  addressing  the  public  meetings  to 
which  he  has  alluded,  as  though  my  speaking  there  had  been  the 
cause  instead  of  the  consequence  of  the  scruples  of  our  people. 
Then  it  was  I  joined  them  to  seek  a  remedy  for  our  just  complaint, 
but  if  in  your  wisdom  this  body  shall  think  proper  to  deny,  it  we 
must  bear  it. 

He  contended  again  that  it  would  be  turning  the  public  money  to 
private  uses.  That  seems  to  me  to  have  been  fully  answered.  He  also 
contended  that  it  would  be  the  giving  of  the  money  of  the  State  to 
support  religion.  That  I  have  clispiited  ;  for  if  so  I  shall  have  no 
objection  to  join  those  gentlemen  in  their  remonstrance.  But  at  the 
same  time  it  does  appear  strange  to  me  that  the  gentleman,  who 
pretends  to  have  read  the  Scriptures  tvuth  so  much  attention,  should 
not  have  learned  that  principle — the  most  general,  sir,  and  the  most 
infallible  of  Christian  principles  for  the  guidance  of  our  conduct — 

“Do  UNTO  OTHERS  AS  YE  WOULD  THAT  OTHERS  SHOULD  DO  UNTO 

YOU.”  That  is  the  principle ;  and  is  it  not  strange  that  such  opjRc 
sition  should  be  made  to  us  when  it  is  known  that  money  raised  by 
public  tax  goes  to  the  support  of  literature  under  the  supervision  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  And  why  do  not  Catholics 
object  to  that  ?  Because  the  tax  does  not  belong  to  any  particular 
sect ;  it  is  thrown  into  a  common  fund  and  applied  to  such  uses  as  the 
legislature  in  its  wisdom  thinks  proper.  We,  six*,  however,  ask  for 
our  own  and  nothing  else.  But  if  you  say  that  we  shall  be  taxed 
for  a  system  which  is  so  organized  that  we  cannot  participate  in  it 
without  detiument  to  the  religious  rights  of  our  children,  then  I  say 
that  injustice  is  done  even  to  our  civil  rights ;  for  taxation  is  the 
basis  of  even  civil  rights.  And  I  was  not  a  little  struck  in  the  course 
of  the  argument,  that  some  gentlemen  should  refer  with  so  much 
emphasis  as  to  a  circumstance  novel  and  unparalleled  even  in  social 


180 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


life — that  a  certain  class  of  gentlemen  should  petition  for  what  ? 
The  privilege  of  being  taxed!  They  deemed  it  ^ lirivilege^  and  that 
was  wonderful !  and  merit  was  ascribed  to  them  for  it.  Yes,  sir, 
but  did  it  go  to  the  extent  only  of  their  own  pockets  ?  Or  did  it 
not  reach  the  pockets  equally  of  those  who  did  not  petition  ?  If  to 
themselves  only,  it  was  all  fair,  and  proper,  disinterested  and  patri¬ 
otic  :  but  great  emjjhasis  was  laid  on  this  class  being  most  “  intelli¬ 
gent”  and  “  wealthy”  and  “  respectable,”  nobility  almost,  as  though 
a  question  of  this  kind  was  intended  for  a  j^articular  class.  But  let 
me  tell  you  the  honest  man  who  occupies  only  a  bed  in  a  garret,  is 
also  a  tax  payer.  Why  give  him  a  vote  ?  Because  he  pays  tax  for 
the  space  he  occupies.  If  he  occupies  a  room  and  pays  the  tax,  his 
rent  is  less — if  the  landlord  pays,  his  rent  is  so  much  more.  So,  if 
he  occupies  a  garret,  or  if  he  boards,  it  goes  down  to  that,  for  the 
person  who  keeps  the  boarding-house  pays  the  rent ;  if  that  tax  is 
paid  by  the  boarding-house  keeper  the  rent  is  so  much  less  than  if 
the  tax  was  paid  by  the  landlord.  If  the  boarding-house  keeper 
pays  the  tax,  he  charges  more  for  board.  So  that  the  boarder  is  a 
tax  payer,  and  it  is  so  understood  in  our  broad  and  excellent  system 
of  representation.  The  exclusive  merit  of  this  tax,  then,  is  not  to  be 
given  to  any  particular  class,  no  matter  how  wealthy ;  and  I  was 
surprised  that  so  much  emphasis  should  be  laid  on  it.  I  did  not 
suppose  that  the  interests  of  the  poor  were  to  be  sacrificed  to  the 
respectability  of  the  rich.  The  poor  pay  too ;  and  it  is  a  beautiful 
and  admirable  thing  to  see  what  a  dignity  this  confers  on  human 
nature — what  an  interest  this  excites  in  the  poor.  I  recollect  pass¬ 
ing  along  a  street  some  time  since,  and  I  observed  a  little  house, 
almost  a  shed  or  hovel,  some  fourteen  or  sixteen  feet  square,  which 
was  too  small  to  be  divided  into  two  compartments.  It  had  but 
one  window,  and  this  had  originally  had  four  panes  of  glass,  but  one 
having  been  broken  it  was  darkened.  There  had  been  some  politi¬ 
cal  party  triumph  ;  the  boys  in  the  streets  had  their  drums  out  and 
there  appeared  to  be  a  popular  rejoicing,  and  there  I  saw  three  lights 
burning  in  the  window  of  this  poor  habitation.  I  was  amused  to 
see  that  a  man  living  in  so  poor  a  hovel,  and  unable  to  buy  a  fourth 
jjane  of  glass,  should  find  means  to  light  the  other  three.  But  on 
further  reflection  I  said  to  myself,  “  there  is  philosophy  there.” 
What  other  nation  can  exhibit  such  a  spectacle  ?  This  poor  man, 
who  must  toil  till  the  day  he  goes  to  his  grave,  participates  in  a 
political  triumph.  His  bread  has  to  be  earned  by  daily  toil  never¬ 
theless  ;  though  the  triumph  perhaps  will  never  benefit  him,  he 
exhibits  a  glorious  spectacle  to  the  world.  He  is  a  man — he  feels  it 
is  recognized.  It  is  a  nation’s  homage  oftered  to  human  nature. 
He  is  a  man  and  a  citizen  ;  and  on  reflection  I  was  delighted  at  a 
sjiectacle  so  glorious  as  this. 

But  returning  to  the  subject,  they  say  all  religion  is  left  to  volun¬ 
tary  contribution.  N ow  is  this  true  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  here 
applied  ?  Are  not  chaiilains  apiiointed  to  public  institutions  which 
are  supported  by  the  public  money  ?  And  have  you  not  given  it  to 


BEFORE  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 


181 


the  Protestant  Oi'phan  Asylum,  and  the  Half-orphan  Asylum?  Have 
you  not  given  it  to  the  Catholic  Benevolent  Society?  And  do  you  sup¬ 
pose  the  Wesleyan  Catechism  is  taught  there?  Do  you  suppose  the 
Catholic  Catechism  is  taught  in  the  Protestant  Asylums  ?  One  gentle¬ 
man  argued  that  you  had  not  the  power  to  do  this.  But  if  you  have 
done  it,  does  not  that  prove  that  you  had  the  power  ?  If  you  had 
power  to  do  that  you  have  power  equally  to  do  this.  I  shall  go 
further.  I  find  in  the  Report  of  the  Regents  of  the  University,  that 
the  Genesee  Wesleyan  Seminary — Theological  Seminary,  as  I  under¬ 
stand — has  last  year  received  $1,395.56  of  the  public  money.  This 
is  not  exclusively  literary,  as  I  understand  it — 

Dr.  Bangs.  Altogether  literary. 

Bishop  Hughes.  I  M'as  under  the  impression  that  it  was  Theolo¬ 
gical,  and  that  religion  was  admitted.  But  those  in  this  city  furnish 
evidence  that  a  religious  profession  does  not  disqualify. 

I  believe  now,  sir,  I  have  gone  through  the  substance  at  least,  if 
not  through  every  particular,  of  what  has  been  said  by  the  gentle¬ 
men  who  interpose  their  remonstrances  and  their  arguments  in 
opposition  to  our  rightful  claim.  I  Avill  now  read  one  authority,  and 
I  am  the  more  willing  because  it  is  from  the  Public  School  Society 
themselves.  It  is  from  the  memorial  which  they  presented  to  the 
Legislature  in  the  Session  of  1823,  in  which  they  state,  page  7,  “It 
will  not  be  denied  ” — recollect  I  do  not  quote  this  to  show  that  our 
petition  ought  to  be  granted ;  but  that,  whatever  opinion  these  gen¬ 
tlemen  may  now  have  ofAhe  unconstitutionality  of  granting  this 
claim,  they  saw  nothing  unconstitutional  in  the  practice  then,  and  I 
know  of  nothing  so  far  as  the  constitution  is  concerned,  neither  of 
the  State,  nor  of  the  United  States — I  know  of  no  enactment  which 
should  change  their  opinion : 

“  It  ■will  not  be  denied,  in  this  enlightened  age,  that  the  education  of  the  poor 
is  enjoined  by  our  holy  religion,  and  is  therefore  one  of  the  duties  of  a  Christian 
Church.  Nor  is  there  any  impropriety  in  committing  the  School  Fund  to  the 
hands  of  a  religious  society,  so  long  as  they  are  confined,  in  the  appropriation  of 
it,  to  an  object  not  necessarily  connected  or  intermingled  with  the  other  concerns 
of  the  church,  as  for  instance  to  the  payment  of  teachers,  because  the  State  is  sure 
in  this  case,  that  the  benefits  of  the  fund,  in  the  way  it  designed  to  confer  them, 
will  be  reaped  by  the  poor.  But  the  objection  to  the  section  sought  to  be  repealed 
is,  that  the  surplus  moneys  after  the  payment  of  teachers,  is  vested  in  the  hands 
of  the  trustees  of  a  religious  society,  and  mingled  with  its  other  funds,  to  be  ap¬ 
propriated  to  the  erection  of  buildings  under  the  control  of  the  trustees,  which 
buildings  may,  and  in  aU  probability  will,  be  used  for  other  purposes  than  school 
houses.” 

That  is  the  statement  of  the  Public  School  Society  itself;  and 
throughout  this  document — while  the  gentlemen  here  have  been 
wielding  against  our  petition  the  influence  of  respectable  and 
wealtliy  classes — I  find  that  before  the  acquisition  of  their  monopoly, 
they  advocated  the  claims  of  the  poor  whc  cannot  buy  education — ■ 
sometimes  scarcely  bread.  This  is  the  class  to  whose  welfare  the 
eye  of  the  enlightened,  the  patriotic,  and  the  benevolent  should  be 
directed — this  is  the  class  that  essentially  requires  education.  Thus 


182 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’  SECOND  SPEECH 


they  say,  “The  School  Fund  is  designed  for  a  civil  purjose,  for  such 
is  the  education  of  the  poory 

Again,  they  say  that  the  New  York  Free  School  (that  was  their 
own  Society)  has  “  one  single  object,  the  education  of  the  poor.^' 
x\gain,  the  Board  of  Trustees  is  annually  chosen,  etc.,  “/or  the  edu¬ 
cation  of  the  poor."  And  yet  now  I  could  point  out  thousands  of 
oil}’  poor  who  are  destitute  of  education,  and  who  have  no  means  to 
provide  it.  We  do  what  we  can,  but  we  are  too  limited  in  means 
to  raise,  of  ourselves,  a  sutRcient  fund  ;  we  have  labored  under  great 
disadvantages ;  we  have  taught  the  catechism  in  our  schools,  because, 
while  'we  siq^ported  them  we  had  the  right  to  do  so ;  but  if  you  put 
them  on  the  footing  of  the  common  schools  we  shall  be  satistied,  and 
the  State  will  secure  the  education  of  our  children ;  you  will  secure 
them  an  education  on  the  basis  of  morality,  for  they  had  better  be 
brought  up  under  the  morality  of  our  religion,  though  gentlemen 
object,  than  none  at  all.  They  say  the  objection  to  the  present 
schools  is  that  there  they  are  made  Protestants.  No,  sir,  it  is  be¬ 
cause  they  are  made  Nothingarians,  for  we  cannot  teU  what  they 
are.  I  have  now  concluded ;  and  if  I  have  been  obliged  to  trespass 
long  upon  your  patience,  recollect,  as  some  extenuation,  that  I  had  a 
great  deal  to  reply  to  in  the  arguments  of  gentlemen  which  were 
urged  to  overthrow  the  principles  of  our  petition,  but  had  no  bear¬ 
ing  on  the  petition  at  all.  We  do  not  ask  for  the  elevation  of  the 
Catholics  over  others,  but  for  the  protection  to  which  all  are  en¬ 
titled.  The  question  is  exceedingly  plain  and  simple.  If  it  has  or 
can  be  shown  that  we  are  claiming  this  money  for  sectarian  purposes, 
then  I  should  advise  you  to  withhold  it.  But  if  in  honesty,  and 
truth,  and  sincerity,  it  is  a  right  belonging  to  us  as  citizens,  to  re¬ 
ceive  our  pro  rata,  then  we  appeal  to  you  with  confidence. 

From  the  sentiments  expressed  here  on  behalf  of  the  Public 
School  Society,  you  can  judge  of  the  chance  that  Catholic  children 
have  in  those  schools,  to  have  their  religious  rights  respected.  It 
will  be,  as  perhaps  it  has  been,  considered  a  great  and  good  work 
to  detach  them  from  a  religion  which  is  supposed  “  to  teach  the 
lawfulness  of  murdering  heretics.”  Infidelity  itself  will  be  con¬ 
sidered  preferable  to  Catholicism  in  their  regard,  for  one  reverend 
gentleman  has  told  you  that  if  there  was  no  alternative,  he  would 
embrace  the  doctrines  of  Voltaire  rather  than  the  religion  of  a 
Cheverus  or  a  Fenelon.  If  the  Catholics  have  been  obliged  to 
keep  their  children  from  those  schools  in  time  past,  you  may  imagine 
what  efiects  these  sentiments,  this  animus  of  the  system  is  likely  to 
have  on  their  minds  for  the  time  to  come.  But  if  it  is  our  religious 

^  ^  o 

right  to  have  a  conscience  at  all,  do  not  take  pains  to  pervert  it,  for 
we  shall  not  be  better  citizens  afterwards.  Do  not  teach  us  to  slight 
the  admonitions  of  our  conscience.  Reverse  our  case  and  make  it 
your  own,  and  then  you  will  be  able  to  judge.  IVIake  it  your  own 
case,  and  suppose  your  children  were  in  the  case  of  those  poor 
children  for  whom  I  plead ;  then  suppose  what  your  feelings  would 
be  if  the  blessings  of  education  were  provided  bountifully  by  tfie 


BEFOEE  THE  CITY  COUISrCIL. 


183 


State,  and  yon  wei'e  nnable  to  participate  in  those  blessings,  unless 
you  were  willing  to  submit  that  your  conscience  should  be  trenched 
upon. 

Here  the  Right  Rev.  Prelate  sat  down  after  having  spoken  for 
nearly  three  hours  and  a  half. 


SPEECHES  OF  THE  RT.  REV.  DR.  HUGHES, 

IN  CARROLL  HALL. 

BEING  A  REVIEW  AND  REFUTATION  OF  THE  REMONSTRANCE  OF 
THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SOCIETY,  AND  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  OF 
HIRAM  KETCHUM,  ESQ.,  THEIR  COUNSEL,  ON  THE  COMMON 
SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


Wednesday  Evening,  June  16,  1841. 

Public  notice  having  been  given  in  the  daily  papers  of  the  city,  that  Bishop 
Hughes  would  commence  a  Review  and  Refutation  of  the  argument  which 
was  made  by  Hiram  Ketchum,  Esq.,  before  a  Committee  of  the  Legislature, 
at  Albany,  in  opposition  to  the  Bill  and  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  on 
the  subject  of  Common  School  education  in  the  city  of  New  York,  a  very 
large  and  respectable  assemblage  convened  in  Carroll  Hall,  on  that  even¬ 
ing,  to  hear  the  address  of  the  Bishop.  Among  the  gentlemen  present, 
we  noticed  the  Hon.  Luther  Bradish,  Lieutenant-Governor,  and  several  of 
the  Senators  of  the  State,  who  were  then  in  attendance  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  as  members  of  the  Court  for  the  Correction  of  Errors.  At  the  hour 
specified  in  the  notice,  the  meeting  was  organized,  by  the  appointment  of 
Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  Chairman,  and  Bernard  O’Connor,  Esq.,  Secretary. 
Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  then  rose  and  spoke  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen, — The  subject  of  education  is  one  which  at 
this  time  agitates,  more  or  less,  every  civilized  nation.  If  we  look  across 
the  ocean,  we  find  it  the  subject  of  discussion  in  France,  in  Priussia,  in  Hol¬ 
land,  in  Belgium,  in  Ireland,  and  even  in  Austria.  It  is  not  surprising  then 
that  this  subject  which  has  but  lately  attracted  the  attention  of  governments 
•  and  nations,  should  become  one  of  deep  and  absorbing  interest.  But  of  all 
these  nations  there  is,  perhaps,  not  one  which  has  placed  education  on  that 
basis,  on  which  it  is  destined  successfully,  in  the  end,  to  repose. 

In  countries  in  which  the  inhabitants  profess  the  same  religion,  whatever 
that  religion  may  be,  the  subject  is  deprived  of  many  of  its  difficulties.  But 
in  nations  in  which  there  is  a  variety  of  religious  creeds,  it  has  hitherto  been 
found  one  of  the  most  perplexing  of  all  questions,  to  devise  a  system  of  edu¬ 
cation  which  should  meet  the  approbation  of  all.  This  subject  has  engaged 
the  attention  of  our  own  government.  In  every  State  of  the  Union  it  has 
already  been  acted  upon  more  or  less  fully,  and  in  all  these  instances,  whetlier 
we  regard  Euro])e  or  regard  this  country,  we  find  that  thero  is  not  a  solitary 
instance  in  which  religion,  or  religious  instruction  in  a  course  of  education, 
has  been  j)roscribed,  with  the  exception  of  the  city  of  New  York.  And 


184 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


this  proscription  of  religion  in  this  city  is  not  an  act  of  public  authority ; 
there  is  no  statute  authorizing  such  an  act — it  has  been  the  result  rather  of 
an  erroneous  construction  put  upon  a  statute,  and  which  has  been  acquiesced 
in,  rather  than  approved,  for  the  last  sixteen  years.  In  the  operation  of  that 
system,  Catholics  felt  themselves  virtually  excluded  from  the  benefits  of 
education.  Very  shortly  after  that  construction  of  the  law  was  adopted, 
they  felt  themselves  obliged  to  proceed  in  the  best  way  that  their  poverty 
would  allow  for  the  education  of  their  children ;  and  whilst  they  have  been 
taxed  with  the  other  citizens,  up  to  the  present  hour  they  have  derived  no 
benefit  from  the  system  supported  by  that  “taxation,  but  on  the  contrary, 
after  having  contributed  what  the  law  required,  have  been  obliged  to  throw 
themselves  back  on  their  own  resources,  and  provide,  as  well  as  they  might, 
for  the  means  of  educating  their  children. 

We  have,  from  time  to  time,  complained  of  this  state  of  things.  It  has 
frequently  been  brought  before  the  notice  of  the  public.  A  society — pro¬ 
fessedly  the  friend  of  education — having  exercised  supreme  control  over  the 
whole  question,  we  had  no  resource  but  to  apply  to  that  tribunal,  which  the 
law  had  authorized  to  use  its  discretion  in  distributing  the  money  set  apart 
for  the  purposes  of  education.  We  always  insisted,  in  good  faith,  that  the 
object — the  benevolent  object  of  this  government  wms,  the  education  of  the 
rising  generation,  and  we  never  conceived  that  the  question  of  religion,  or 
no  religion,  had  entered  into  the  minds  of  those  philanthropic  public  men 
who  first  established  this  system  for  the  diffusion  of  knowledge.  We  applied, 
as  I  have  remarked,  at  different  times,  to  the  tribunal  to  which  allusion  has 
been  already  made,  and  did  so  even  till  a  very  recent  period,  because,  before 
we  could  apply  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  it  was  requisite  to  comply 
with  the  forms  prescribed,  and  that  w'e  should  be  first  rejected  by  the  Com¬ 
mon  Council  of  this  city,  to  whom  the  State  Legislature  had  delegated  the 
discretionary  power  to  be  exercised  in  the  premises.  That  course  was  re¬ 
garded  necessary,  and  we  adopted  it.  The  result  was  as  we  anticipated — 
denial  of  our  request — and  then  it  was  that  we  applied  to  the  Legislature  of 
the  State — submitted  to  them  the  grievances  under  which  we  labored,  in  the 
full  confidence  that  there  w'e  should  find  a  remedy. 

Both  before  the  Common  Council  and  the  Senate  of  this  State  the  means 
W'hich  have  been  taken  to  defeat  the  proper  consideration  of  our  claims 
itave  been  such  as  we  could  not  have  anticipated  in  a  country  where  the 
rights  of  conscience  are  recognized  as  supreme.  The  test  has  been  put,  not 
as  to  Mdiether  we  were  proper  subjects  for  education,  but  whether  we  were 
Catholics !  And  in  the  course  of  the  examination  on  which  I  am  about  to 
enter,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  show  that,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end, 
the  one  object  of  the  members  of  the  Public  School  Society  has  been  to  con¬ 
vince  the  public  that  we  were  Catholics,  and  they,  it  would  appear,  calcu¬ 
late,  as  the  consequence,  that  if  we  were  Catholics,  then  we  had  no  right  to 
obtain  redress,  or  hope  for  justice. 

In  the  course  of  my  remarks,  I  shall  be  obliged  to  refer  to  distinctions  in 
religion,  the  introduction  of  wdiich  into  the  discussion  of  this  question  is 
ever  to  be  much  regretted ;  I  shall  have  to  speak  of  Catholics  and  of  Prot¬ 
estants,  and  when  I  do  so,  let  it  be  understood  that  I  do  not  volunteer  in 
that ;  but  the  course  pursued  by  that  Public  School  Society  has  imposed 
upon  me  the  necessity  to  refer  to  these  religious  distinctions,  and  in  doing 
so,  I  trust  I  shall  be  found  to  speak  of  those  who  differ  from  me  in  matters 
of  religion  with  becoming  respect.  I  am  not  a  man  of  narrow  feelings — I 
am  attached  sincerely  and  conscientiously  to  the  faith  which  I  profess,  but 
I  judge  no  man  for  professing  another.  In  the  whole  of  my  intercourse 
with  Protestants,  my  conduct  has  been  such  that  they  will  be  ready  to 
acknowledge,  in  Philadelphia  and  elsewhere,  that  I  am  the  last  man  to  be 


SPEECHES  IN  CARROLL  HALL. 


185 


Rccnsed  of  bigotry.  But  I  feel  that  I  should  be  unworthy  of  th£.t  estima¬ 
tion — tliat  the  denomination  to  which  I  belong  would  be  unworthy  of  sus¬ 
taining  that  position  which  they  are  ambitious  to  occupy  in  the  opinion  of 
their  fellow-citizens  of  other  creeds,  if  they  were  to  submit  to  the  insult 
added  to  the  injury  inflicted  on  them  by  these  men.  I,  for  my  own  part, 
feel  indignant  at  the  recent  attempt  made  to  cast  odium  upon  us  and  our 
cause,  and  it  is  because  that  turns  entirely  on  the  question  of  religion,  that 
I  shall  be  obliged  to  speak  of  Catholics  and  of  Protestants,  and  to  refer  to 
those  distinctions  which  should  never  have  been  introduced. 

Before  taking  up  the  Keport  cf  the  Secretary  of  State,  I  shall  refer  briefly 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  discussion  before  the  Common  Council.  There  we 
had,  as  you  will  recollect,  legal  gentlemen,  and  reverend  gentlemen,  advo¬ 
cates  of  the  Public  School  Society,  who  had  studied  the  question  in  all  its 
bearings — volunteers  and  associates,  and  colleagues,  on  the  same  side,  and 
throughout  that  debate  the  ground  taken  by  them  was,  that  if  our  petition 
were  granted,  favors  would  be  conferred  on  us  as  a  religious  denomination, 
tending  to  that,  against  which  all  the  friends  of  liberty  should  guard — a 
union  of  Church  and  State.  So  long  as  that  idea  was  honestly  entertained 
by  these  gentlemen,  I  could  respect  their  zeal  in  opposing  us.  But  that 
idea  has  disappeared,  and  yet  their  oj)position  has  become  more  inveterate 
than  ever. 

The  very  last  sentence  of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Ketchum  before  the  Common 
Council  of  the  city  of  ISTewYork,  was  a  declaration  that  this  Society,  so  far 
from  desiring  a  collision  of  this  kind  with  us,  were  men  of  peace,  to  whom 
even  the  moral  friction  of  the  debate  was  quite  a  punishment ;  that  for 
them  it  would  be  a  relief,  if  our  system  of  education  were  assimilated  in  its 
external  aspect  to  that  of  the  State.  I  will  read  his  own  words ; 

“  Now,  perhaps  the  gentleman  may  ask,  if  the  system  is  to  be  changed,  that  we 
should  resort  to  the  same  course  as  is  pursued  in  the  country,  where  the  people  elect 
their  own  Commissioners  and  Trustees.  But  if  we  do,  the  schools  must  be  governed 
on  the  same  principles  as  these,  and  the  only  difference  will  be  in  the  managers.  And 
if  it  is  to  come  to  that,  I  am  sure  these  Trustees  will  be  very  willing,  for  it  is  to  them  a 
source  of  great  vexation  to  be  compelled  to  carry  on  this  controversy  for  such  a 
period. 

“  They  are  very  unwilling  to  come  here  to  meet  their  fellow-citizens  in  a  somewhat 
hostile  manner.  They  have  nothing  to  gain,  for  the  Society  is  no  benefit  to  them,  and 
they  give  days  and  weeks  of  their  time,  without  recompense,  to  the  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  their  trust.” 

I  shall  not  now  praise  that  Society.  I  have  more  than  once  given  my 
full  assent  to  eulogiums  on  their  zeal  and  assiduity ;  but  Mr.  Ketchum 
praises  them  and  they  praise  themselves,  and  at  this  period  of  the  contro¬ 
versy,  they  are  entitled  to  no  praise  from  the  thousands  and  thousands  of 
the  poor  neglected  children  of  New  York,  whom  their  narrow  and  bigoted 
views  have  excluded  from  the  benefits  and  blessings  of  education. 

I  shall  now,  before  proceeding  farther,  take  up  the  Report  of  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  State,  and  commence  with  that  portion  of  it  in  which  he  gives  a 
brief  sketch  of  the  origin  of  this  Society  : 

“  The  Public  School  Society  was  originally  incorporated  in  1805,  by  chapter  103  of 
the  laws  of  that  session,  which  is  entitled  ‘An  act  to  incorporate  the  Society  instituted 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  for  the  establishment  of  a  free  school  for  the  education  of  poor 
children  who  do  not  belong  to  or  are  not  provided  for  by  any  religious  Society.’  In 
1808  its  name  was  changed  to  ‘The  Free  School  Society  of  New  York;’  and  its  powers 
were  extendM  ‘  to  all  children  who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  a  gratuitous  education.’ 
By  chapter  iio  of  the  Laws  of  1828,  its  name  was  changed  to  ‘  The  Public  School  Society 
of  New  York ;’ and  the  Trustees  were  authorized  to  provide  for  the  education  of  ail 
children  in  New  York  not  otherwise  provided  for,  ‘  whether  such  children  be  or  be  not 
the  proper  subjects  of  gratuitous  education;’  and  to  require  from  those  attending  the 
schools  a  moderate  compensation;  but  no  child  to  be  refused  admission  on  account  of 
inability  to  pay.  ” 


186 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


“Thus,  by  tbe  joint  operation  of  tbe  acts  amending  the  c'.  arter  of  the  Society,  of  the 
statutes  in  relation  to  the  school  moneys,  and  of  the  ordinal  ce  of  the  Common  Council, 
designating  the  schools  of  tlie  Society  as  the  principal  recijiients  of  those  moneys,  the 
cont  rol  of  the  public  education  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and  the  disbursement  of  nine- 
tentlis  of  the  public  moneys  raised  and  apportioned  for  schools,  were  vested  in  this 
corporation.  It  is  a  perpetual  corporation,  and  there  is  no  power  reserved  by  the  Legis¬ 
lature  to  repeal  or  modify  its  charter.  It  consists  of  members  who  have  contributed  to 
the  funds  of  the  Society  ;  and,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  last  act,,  the  payment 
of  ten  dollars  constitutes  the  contributor  a  member  for  life.  The  members  annually 
choose  fifty  Trustees,  who  may  add  to  their  number  fifty  more.” 

He  goes  on  to  describe  its  different  acts  by  which  its  name  and  other 
attributes  were  changed,  until  from  being  a  Society  to  take  charge  of  the 
children  that  were  not  provided  for  by  any  religious  Society,  they  came  to 
have  the  control  of  the  whole  system  of  education  in  Hew  York.  The  Re¬ 
port  informs  us  that  the  meml^ers  of  the  Public  School  Society  are  so  by 
virtue  of  a  subscription  of  ten  dollars;  that  they  elect  fifty  Trustees;  that 
these  fifty  Trustees  have  a  right  to  appoint  fifty  others,  and  then  the  num¬ 
ber  is  completed;  that  the  City  Council  are  members  ex-officio,  and  this 
will,  perhaps,  go  a  great  way  in  explaining  the  unwillingness  of  the  Com¬ 
mon  Council  to  grant  our  petition. 

The  Society  was  so  constituted,  that  when  we  went  before  the  Common 
Council,  we  virtually  went  before  a  committee  of  the  Society. 

In  this  state  of  things  the  Governor  of  this  State,  with  a  patriotism  and 
benevolence  that  entitle  his  name  to  the  respect  of  every  man  that  has 
regard  for  humane  feeling  and  sound  and  liberal  policy,  declared  for  a 
system  that  would  aftbrd  a  good  common  education  for  every  child.  And 
though  I  have  never  before  spoken  in  public  the  name  of  that  distinguished 
officer  of  the  State,  I  do  now  from  my  heart  award  to  him  my  warmest 
thanks,  and  those  of  the  community  to  which  I  belong,  for  the  stand  he 
has  taken  on  this  subject.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  victimize  him 
because  he  favored  Catholics — he  dared  to  manifest  a  humane  and  liberal 
feeling  towards  foreigners.  He  survived  that  shock,  however,  and  a  recent 
excellent  document  from  him,  showing  that  he  is  not  any  longer  a  candidate 
for  jjublic  favor,  authorizes  me  to  say  in  this  place,  that  every  man  who 
loves  his  country  and  the  interests  of  his  race,  no  matter  what  may  be  his 
politics,  will  cordially  render  the  tribute  of  esteem  and  praise  due  to 
Governor  Seward. 

[The  chairman  had,  on  taking  his  place,  requested  the  meeting  to 
refrain  from  interrupting  the  Right  Rev.  Speaker,  or  giving  any  demon¬ 
strations  of  applause,  but  here  they  could  not  restrain  their  feelings,  and 
testified  their  concurrence  in  the  sentiments  of  the  Bishop  in  reference  to 
Governor  Seward,  by  a  loud  and  enthusiastic  burst  of  applause.] 

Governor  Seward  knew  too  well.  Bishop  Hughes  continued,  the  deep 
seated  prejudices  of  a  large  portion  of  the  community,  not  to  feel  that  h'e 
had  nothing  to  gain  by  being  the  advocate  of  justice  to  Catholics.  But 
whatever  may  be  that  distinguished  statesman’s  future  history,  whatever 
his  situation,  however  much  thwarted  and  opposed,  and,  perchance,  for  a 
moment  partially  defeated  by  those  who  call  themselves  the  friends  of 
education,  it  will  be  glory  enough  for  him  to  have  inscribed  upon  his 
monument,  that  whilst  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York,  he  wished  to 
have  every  child  of  that  noble  State,  endowed  and  adorned  in  mind  and 
intellect,  and  morals,  with  the  blessings  of  education.  (Reneweel  cheers.) 

When  therefore  we  presented,  as  every  oppressed  portion  of  the  com¬ 
munity  has  a  right  to  do,  our  grievances  to  the  Honorable  Legislature  of 
the  State,  these  gentlemen,  who  are  repi’esented  by  Mr.  Ketchum,  through  a 
Bl)eech  of  nine  mortal  columns — as  the  humble  almoners  of  the  public 
charity— these  men  who  are  burthened  with  their  load  of  official  duty 


SPEECHES  IH  CAEEOLL  HALL. 


187 


wbicli  they  are  willing,  Mr.  Ketchura  says,  to  put  off,  pursue  us  thither 
with  unabated  hostility.  We  su2)posed- that  the  Public  School  Society 
would  acquiesce  in  the  justice  of  the  jilan  of  the  Secretary.  No,  these 
humble  men,  all  7eal  for  the  cause  of  education,  enter  the  halls  of  legislation 
with  a  determined  spirit  of  ojoj^osition  to  us,  which  is  perhajjs  unjiaralleled, 
considering  the  circumstances  under  which  they  acted. 

One  of  the  most  difficult  j)oints  in  treating  with  these  gentlemen  is,  to 
ascertain  in  what  2)articular  situation,  and  under  what  particular  circum¬ 
stances,  their  res2)onsibility  may  be  discovered.  They  are,  it  is  said,  but 
agents,  they  are  wealthy  and  2)owerful,  have  every  advantage  in  opposing 
humble  petitioners  as  we  are,  and  with  all  these  advantages  they  j^resented 
tliemselves  there,  not  to  dispute  the  justice  of  our  claims,  nor  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  the  ground  on  which  the  Honorable  Secretary  placed  the  question 
before  the  Senate,  but  to  ajojoeal  even  in  the  minds  of  Senators,  to  whatever 
they  might  find  there  of  prejudice  against  the  Catholic  religion,  and  the 
foreigner  and  the  descendants  of  the  foreigner. 

One  of  the  documents  of  which  they  made  use,  was  published  in  the 
“Journal  of  Commerce.”  This  question  had  been,  in  the  Senate,  made  the 
sjoecial  order  of  the  day,  for,  I  think,  Friday,  the  20th  of  May.  In  the 
“Journal  of  Commerce”  of  the  previous  day,  there  was  jaublished  a  most 
calumnious  article,  full  of  all  those  traditions  against  our  religion,  which 
the  minds  of  some  of  these  denominations  inherit ;  and  the  Agent  of  the 
Public  School  Society,  sent,  as  we  should  understand,  to  represent  justice 
and  truth  between  citizens  of  the  same  country,  is  found  distributing  this 
paper  all  over  the  desks  of  the  senators !  On  that  very  day  it  was  supjiosed 
that  the  vote  on  this  very  question  would  be  taken,  and  the  agent  of  the 
Public  School  Society  is  found  sujjplying  the  senators — for  I  have  a  copy 
of  the  pajjers  thus  furnished,  with  the  member’s  name  written  at  the  top, 
and  the  article  referred  to,  marked  with  black  lines,  so  that  there  could  be 
no  over  looking  it — with  an  article  containing  a  mock  excommunication,  a 
burlesque  invented  by  Sterne,  and  inserted  in  his  Tristram  Shandy,  but 
quoted  by  the  Public  School  Society,  (for  I  hold  it  to  be  their  act  till  they 
disclaim  it,)  as  a  part  of  our  creed,  and  made  the  ground  of  a  sneer  at  the 
Secretary :  “  Tliese  are  precious  princijjles  to  be  2)reserved  in  the  con¬ 
sciences  of  your  petitioners  !”  Pieligious  j^rejudice  will  have  its  reign  in 
the  world.  But  it  is  a  low  feeling,  especially  is  it  a  low  feeling  in  a  country, 
in  the  fundamental  princif)les  of  whose  government  and  laws  the  great 
fathers  of  our  liberties  insisted  that  conscience  and  religion  should  be  ever 
free,  and  be  regarded  as  above  all  law.  There  was  to  be  no  toleration,  for 
that  imjjlied  the  ^iower  not  to  tolerate ;  the  word  w'as  therefore  excluded 
from  the  language  of  American  jurisjjrudence.  And  that  being  the  case, 
it  was  painful  to  find  an  honorable  body  of  men,  as  the  members  of  the 
Public  School  Society  are  regarded  to  be,  employing  such  a  means  of 
ap^rroaching  the  Senate  of  New  York — that  Senate,  to  which  Justice,  if  she 
found  not  a  resting  place  uj)ou  the  globe,  like  the  dove  to  the  ark,  might 
return,  and  expect  every  hand  to  be  stretched  out  to  receive  her.  (Loud 
api^lause.) 

If  they  deny  that  they  apjjroached  that  Senate  with  that  document — 
too  vile  and  filthy  to  be  read  in  this  audience ;  but  if  any  gentleman  has 
the  curiosity  to  see  it,  here  (holding  up  a  volume  of  Tristram  Shandy)  he 
may  read  it  word  for  word — let  them  call  their  agent  to  account.  We  will 
not  let  them  rob  us  of  our  reputation.  We  stand  ambitious  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  worthy  of  membership  in  the  great  American  family — let  them  not, 
after  dejn’iving  us  of  the  benefit  of  our  taxes,  destroy  our  reputation. 

I  will  now,  after  this  introduction,  take  up  the  “Remonstrance”  of  tie 
Society  It  is  inqiossible  for  me  not  to  feel  indignant,  when  I  think  how 


188 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


these  high-minded  men  have  treated  us,  when  I  recollect  that  this  same 
gentleman,  who  acted  as  their  agent  and  distributed  that  calumnious  paper, 
was  once  a  candidate  for  office,  and  gladly  received  the  signatures  of 
Catholics.  And  this  was  the  recompense  he  offered. 

I  know  not  by  whom  this  “  Remonstrance”  was  drawn  up,  I  know  not 
whether  all  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  approved  of  it,  but  if 
they  did,  I  trust  there  were  no  Catholics  present. 

In  page  3  of  this  “  Remonstrance,”  which  is  signed  by  the  President, 
“  Robert  C.  Cornell,”  we  find  the  following  declaration  introductory  to  the 
subject : 

“  The  Legislature  therefore  in  1813,  when  the  first  distribution  was  made,  very 
naturally  appropriated  the  amount  apportioned  to  this  city  to  these  schools  in  the 
ratio  of  the  number  of  children  taught  in  each.  This  mode  of  distribution  continued 
until  1824,  when  the  subject  was  again  brought  before  the  legislature  by  the  jealousies, 
disputes,  and  difficulties  which  had  arisen  among  the  recipients,  and  the  conflicting 
parties  presented  themselves  at  Albany  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  their  respective 
claims.” 

Now  in  all  tbe  foregoing  applications,  in  all  tbe  reports  made  by  com¬ 
mittees  of  tbe  Common  Council,  you  will  find  there  has  not  been  one  in 
which  the  subject  of  religion  was  not  referred  to  as  the  ground  of  the 
refusal  of  our  claims ;  in  which  it  was  not  assumed  that  the  laws  were 
opposed  to  giving  education  money,  the  Public  School  Fund  or  any  portion 
of  it,  to  any  religious  denomination.  This  principle,  it  has  been  pretended, 
and  the  disputes  among  the  sects,  led  to  the  alteration  of  the  law  in  1824. 
But  if  we  refer  back  to  the  memorial  proceeding  from  this  Society  itself,  we 
will  find  that  no  such  thing  existed  at  the  time.  We  find,  that  Mr. 
Leonard  Bleecker  sent  a  memorial  at  that  very  jferiod,  1824,  in  which  he 
says : 

“  It  will  not  be  denied,  in  this  enlightened  age,  that  the  education  of  the  poor  is 
enjoined  by  our  holy  religion,  and  is  therefore,  one  of  the  duties  of  a  Christian  church. 
Nor  is  there  .any  impropriety  in  committing  the  school  fund  to  the  hands  of  a  religious 
society,  so  long  as  they  are  confined  in  the  appropriation  of  it,  to  an  object  no-Vueces- 
sarily  connected,  or  intermingled  with  the  other  concerns  of  the  church,  as  for  instance 
to  the  payment  of  teachers,  because  the  state  is  sure  in  this  case,  that  the  benefits  of 
the  fund,  in  the  way  it  designed  to  confer  them,  will  be  reaped  by  the  poor.  But  the 
objection  to  the  section  sought  to  be  repealed  is,  that  the  surplus  moneys,  after  the 
payment  of  teachers,  is  vested  in  the  hands  of  the  Trustees  of  a  religious  society,  and 
mingled  with  its  other  funds,  to  be  appropriated  to  the  erection  of  buildings  under  the 
control  of  the  trustees,  which  buildings  may,  and  in  all  probability  will,  be  used  for 
other  purposes  than  school  houses.” 

Here  was  the  ground  taken,  and  yet  we  hear  these  gentlemen  before  the 
Common  Council  say  it  was  on  account  of  constitutional  difficulties,  and 
religious  differences ;  whereas  it  was  simply  because  the  money  had  been 
used  for  an  improper  purpose. 

In  page  5  of  this  “  Remonstrance,”  this  Society  t.akes  the  ground,  in 
opposition  to  the  view  of  its  being  a  monopoly,  and  a  close  corporation, 
which  it  in  fact  is — that  the  same  objection  might  be  used  against  hos- 
Ijitals,  asylums  for  the  blind,  the  ins.ane  and  the  mute,  dispensaries,  and 
houses  of  refuge,  and  they  institute  a  comparison  between  these  institutions 
and  the  Public  Schools. 

Now,  as  to  the  fact,  that  the  Public  School  Society  is  a  close  coi^Doration, 
they  themselves  do  not  deny  that  all  citizens  are  excluded  except  those 
who  can  afford  to  pay  $10  for  membership.  They  do  not  deny  that,  but 
justify  it  on  the  ground  that  inasmuch  as  there  .are  corporations  for  the 
management  of  such  institutions  as  I  have  named,  the  same  reason  exists 
for  the  constitution  of  a  corporation  for  the  direction  of  the  Public  Schools. 
And  where  then,  pray,  are  the  rights  with  which  nature  and  nature’s 
God  have  invested  th«  parents  of  these  children  ?  Pray,  are  they,  who  are 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEEOLL  HALL. 


189 


held  competent  to  decide  on  the  gravest  questions  affecting  :he  interests 
of  the  nation,  unworthy  to  have  a  voice  in  the  education  of  their  own 
children  ?  And  must  they  resign  that  to  a  corporation  resijonsible  neither 
to  them  nor  to  the  public  in  any  formal  way  ?  And  pray,  are  the  people 
of  New  York  lunatics,  that  they  must  have  a  corporation  of  keepers 
apjjointed  over  them  ?  If  the  doctrine  of  this  “memorial”  be  correct,  they 
are  to  be  so  considered.  But  there  is  this  difference,  they  pay  taxes  for 
education,  and  they  have  a  right  to  a  voice  and  a  vote  in  the  manner  in 
which  their  money  is  to  be  expended.  If  the  people  are  to  be  treated  as 
lunatics,  mutes,  or  inmates  of  the  house  of  refuge,  then  the  argument  of  the 
Public  School  Society  is  a  good  one.  I  think  the  comparison  instituted  in 
the  “  Kemonstrance”  utterly  fails.  I  cannot  chvell  longer  upon  it. 

I  now'  come  to  a  charge  made  against  the  petitioners : 

“  At  one  time  it  was  declared  ‘  the  Public  School  system  of  the  city  of  New  York  ia 
entirely  favorable  to  the  sectarianism  of  Infidelity,  and  opposed  only  to  that  of  positive 
Christianity,’  that  ‘  it  leaves  the  will  of  the  pupil  to  riot  in  the  fierceness  of  unrestrained 
lusts,’  and  is  ‘  calculated  to  make  bad  and  dangerous  citizens.’  ” 

Now  it  is  true,  that  we  did  view  the  Society  as  being  opposed  to  religion. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  that.  But  if  that  be  true,  it  is  equally  true  that 
the  evidence  on  wdiich  we  built  that  conclusion  was  furnished  by  them¬ 
selves.  And  how  ?  In  every  report  of  their’s,  it  appears  that  if  any  thing 
like  a  religious  society  presented  itself,  that  character  wms  enough  to  decide 
them  in  resisting  its  application.  You  will  find  this  evidenced  in  their 
vindication  and  defence,  both  by  Mr.  Sedgw’ick  and  Mr.  Ketchum.  They 
contended  that  what  they  meant  by  religious  instruction,  was  not  religious 
instruction — and  so  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  enter  a  little  into  the  exa¬ 
mination  of  the  meaning  of  these  words. 

When  the  Trustees  make  the  religious  character  of  a  society  the  ground 
of  denying  them  a  portion  of  their  funds,  what  is  it  that  constitutes  the 
objection?  They  do  not  decide  against  the  infidel ;  for  it  seems  if  the  ap¬ 
plicants  had  d-ivested  themselves  of  a  religious  character — if  men  of  no 
religious  profession — of  no  belief  in  a  God  or  a  future  state,  had  presented 
themselves,  no  objection  would  be  made,  and  on  their  owm  premises  the 
Trustees  w'ould  be  obliged  to  concede  to  their  request.  What  then 
was  the  reason  of  the  refusal,  except  the  religious  character  of  the  appli¬ 
cants  ?  And  had  we  not  fair  ground  here  for  inferring  that  they  are  op¬ 
posed  to  religion  ?  Examine  their  reports.  Here  is  one ;  A  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  Arts,  Sciences,  and  Schools  of  the  Board  of  Assistants, 
on  appropriating  a  portion  of  the  school  money  to  religious  societies  for 
the  support  of  schools.  This  is  document  No.  80,  and  at  page  380  w'C  read 
as  follows : 

“The  amount  of  one  hundred  and  seven  thousand  dollars  and  upwards,  as  hereto¬ 
fore  stated,  has  been  raised  by  annual  tax  in  the  city  for  purposes  of  a  purely  civil  and 
secular  character.” 

Well,  if  the  education  is  to  be  purely  “civil  and  secular,”  is  religion 
mingled  wfith  it  at  all  ?  And  if  religion  is  not  to  be  mingled  with  it  at  all,  then 
had  we  not  a  right  to  infer  from  their  owm  docunrent  that  they  were  op¬ 
posed  to  religion,  and  brought  up  the  children  without  any  knowledge  of 
their  responsibility  to  God,  or  of  a  future  life,  or  of  any  of  those  great 
princij)les  of  religion  on  which  the  rery  security  of  society  depends  ?  Were 
we  not  justified  in  the  inference?  They  refused  our  apjfiication  because 
w'C  professed  religion  ;  and  had  we  not  a  right  to  keep  our  children  from 
the  influence  of  a  system  of  education  that  attempted  to  make  a  divorce 
between  literature — that  is,  such  literature  as  is  suited  for  the  infant  mind 
— and  religion;  and  to  give  instruction  of  a  civil  and  secular 


190 


Ar.CIIBISIIOP  HUGHES. 


character,”  for  which  we  are  told  $107,000  had  been  expended  ?  How,  I 
ask,  can  Mr.  Cornell  stand  up  and  deny  our  charge,  when  such  indisputable 
evidence  of  its  truth  is  presented  by  their  oion  documents  ? 

Did  jVlr.  Cornell,  when  they  defeated  us,  find  fault  with  the  committee  of 
the  Assistants’  Board,  because  they  charged  the  Society  with  excluding 
religion  from  education?  No!  No!  Enough  it  was  that  religious  socie¬ 
ties  should  be  defeated,  and  that  they  should  continue  to  wield  their  com¬ 
plex  monopoly.  No  matter  that  they  w'ere  charged  with  having  no  reli¬ 
gion.  No  matter  at  all  that  their  education  was  then  described  as  “laurely 
civil  and  secular  !”  This  document  goes  on — “The  appropriation  of  any 
part  of  that  sum  to  the  supjmrt  of  schools  in  which  the  religious  tenets  of 
any  sect  are  taught  to  any  extent.'" 

Well,  if  you  excluded  the  tenets  of  all  sects,  you  excluded  all  religion, 
because  there  is  no  religion  except  what  is  included  in  the  tenets  of  sects. 
I  defy  you  to  teach  the  first  principles  of  religion  without  teaching  the 
tenets  of  sectarianism !  Then  it  was  on  the  faith  of  their  own  documents 
that  we  charged  on  them  the  character  which  they  had  assumed,  on  the 
strength  of  which  they  had  successfully  opposed,  one  after  another,  all  the 
denominations  who  reverence  religion.  The  document  proceeds ; 

— “  would  be  a  legal  establishment  of  one  denomination  of  religion  over  another, 
would  conflict  with  all  the  principles  and  purposes  of  our  free  institutions,  and  would 
violate  the  very  letter  of  that  part  of  our  constitution  which  so  emphatically  declares, 
that  ‘  The  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship,  without 
d'hscrimination  or  preference,  shall  for  ever  be  allowed  in  this  State  to  all  mankind.’  By 
granting  a  portion  of  the  School  Fund  to  one  sect  to  the  exclusion  of  others,  a  ‘  prefer¬ 
ence  ’  is  at  once  created,  a  ‘  discrimination  ’  made,  and  the  object  of  the  great  eonstitu- 
tional  guarantee  is  defeated  ;  taxes  are  imposed  for  the  support  of  religion,  and  freedom 
of  conscience  if  not  directly  trammelled  and  confined,  is  not  left  in  the  perfect  and  un¬ 
shackled  state  which  our  systems  of  government  were  intended  to  establish  and  perpe¬ 
tuate.  No  difference  can  be  perceived  in  principle  between  the  taxing  of  the  people  of 
England  for  the  support  of  a  church  establishment  there,  and  the  taxing  of  the  people 
of  New  York  for  the  support  of  schools  in  which  the  doctrines  of  religious  denomina¬ 
tions  are  taught.” 

And  what  are  w'e  to  infer  from  this,  except  that  they  do  not  teach  reli¬ 
gion  at  all  ?  But  they  have  changed  their  tactics.  For  they  have,  be  it 
remembered,  two  strings  to  their  Idow — one  for  tlmse  who  have  religion, 
and  one  for  those  who  have  not,  and  so  w'e  actually  find  that  whilst  before 
the  Common  Council  of  New  Y^ork  they  are  destitute  of  religion,  and  give 
a  purely  “  civil  and  secular  education,”  at  Albany  they  can  be  in  favor  of 
religion ! 

But  there  is  still  further  evidence  on  this  point.  In  page  18  of  the  Ee- 
port  of  the  deljate  before  the  Common  Council,  we  have  the  explanation  of 
ilr.  Ketchum,  and  it  was  one  of  the  nicest  managed  points  imaginable. 
Indeed,  I  could  not  but  admire  the  sagacity  of  that  gentleman  and  his  as¬ 
sociate,  Mr.  Sedgwick,  in  steering  so  adroitly  between  the  teaching  of  reli¬ 
gion  and  the  not  teaching  of  it,  so  that  they  taught  it,  but  yet  must  not 
call  it  religion  !  We  put  the  gentlemen  between  the  horns  of  a  dilemma — 
we  said  if  you  do  not  teach  religion,  then  you  are  chargeable  with  making 
our  common  schools  seminaries  of  infidelity — if  you  do  teach  it,  then  you 
do  exactly  what  excludes  religious  societies  from  a  right  to  participate  in 
the  fund  !  But  these  gentlemen,  with  great  skill  and  critical  acumen,  and 
a  little  sophistry,  were  alfie  to  steer  by  a  line,  invisible  to  my  mind,  be¬ 
tween  the  horns  of  the  dilemma 

In  describing  the  difierent  kinds  of  instruction,  Mr.  Sedgwick  says : 

“Blit,  beyond  that,  there  is  still  another  branch  of  instru-ction  which  i.s  properly 
called  and  it  is  because  two  phrases— ‘  religious  ’  and  ‘moral  ’ — have  been 

UBcd  ovcasionally  without  as  accurate  apprehension  of  their  significati  on,  that  the  docu- 


SPEECHES  IN  CARROLL  HALL. 


191 


ments  of  the  frtstees  have  been  misconstrued.  But  when  the  term  ‘moral  ’  education 
is  used,  it  only  means  that  education  which  instructs  the  children  in  those  fundamental 
tenets  of  duty  which  are  the  basis  of  all  religion.” 

That  is  to  say  you  build  the  roof  before  you  lay  the  foundation.  For 
whence,  I  ask,  will  men  get  their  knowledge  of  duty,  if  not  based  on  a 
sulistratum  of  religion  ?  But  here  morality  so  called  is  made  the  basis  of 
religion.  Well,  let  us  apply  this  to  the  schools,  and  see  whether  any 
Christian  parent  would  submit  to  have  his  children  placed  under  such  a 
system. 

There  is  a  child  at  one  of  these  schools~they  tell  him  not  to  lie,  but 
children  are  inquisitive,  and  he  asks,  “Why  should  I  not  lie  ?”  You  must 
answer,  because  God  abominates  a  lie — there  you  teach  religion  !  You  ex¬ 
plain  the  reason  why  the  child  should  not  lie,  that  religion  requires,  and 
affoi'ds  the  reason  of  the  performance  of  the  duty — not  that  the  duty  is  the 
basis  of  religion.  It  is  not  enough  to  tell  the  child  you  are  to  S2)eak  the 
truth,  and  when  you  know  and  fulfil  your  duty  then  you  may  learn  that 
hhese  is  a  God  to  whom  you  are  responsible.  Washington  himself  in  his 
Farewell  Address,  cautioned  the  nation  against  the  man  who  would  at¬ 
tempt  to  teach  morality  without  religion.  (Cheers.)  lie  says ; 

“  Of  all  the  dispositions  and  habits  which  lead  to  political  prosperity,  religion  and 
morality  are  indispensable  supports.  In  vain  would  that  man  claim  the  tribute  of 
patriotism,  who  should  labor  to  subvert  these  great  pillars  of  human  hajtpiness,  these 
firmest  props  of  the  duties  of  men  and  citizens.  The  mere  politician,  equally  with  the 
pious  man,  ought  to  respect  and  to  cherish  them.  A  volume  could  not  trace  all  their 
connections  with  private  and  public  felicity.  Let  it  be  simply  asked,  where  is  the  secu¬ 
rity  for  property,  for  reputation,  for  life,  if  the  sense  of  religious  obligations  dksekt  the 
oaths,  which  are  the  instruments  of  investigation  in  courts  of  justice?  And  let  us 
with  cmdion  indulge  the  supfositlon,  th&t  morality  can  be  maintained  without  religion. 
Whatever  may,be  conceded  to  the  influence  of  refined  education  on  minds  of  peculiar 
structure,  reason  and  experience  both  forbid  us  to  expect  that  national  morality  can 
prevail  in  exclusion  of  religious  principle.” 

Had  we  not  then,  I  would  ask  very  respectfully,  a  right,  when  every  pe¬ 
tition  had  been  rejected  on  the  ground  that  the  petitioners  had  a  religious 
belief  to  infer  that  religion  formed  no  joart  of  their  system  of  education, 
and  that  the  consequence  which  we  charged  uijon  them,  and  that  Mr. 
Cornell  rejjudiated  with  so  much  horror,  inevitably  and  justly  followed— 
namely,  that  the  Public  School  Society  was  favorable  to  the  sectarianism 
of  infidelity  ? 

I  now  go  on  to  show  what  the  Public  School  Society  boast  of  having  done 
in  our  regard.  They  had  offered  in  reply  to  our  objections  to  passages  in  their 
books,  as,  for  instance,  where  it  was  stated  that  “John  Huss  was  a  zealous  Ee- 
former,  but  trusting  to  the  deceitful  Catholics^  he  was  taken  by  them  and 
burned  at  the  stake  ” — to  expunge  such  objectionable  passages  when  they  were 
pointed  out.  They,  said,  “  Bishop,  w'e  submit  our  books  to  you,  and  if  you 
will  have  the  goodness  to  point  out  any  objectionable  passages  we  will  expunge 
them.”  Well,  certainly  there  was  something  very  2)lausible  and  apparently 
very  liberal  in  this  offer.  But  when  the  matter  was  pressed,  it  was  found  that 
all  this  w\as  merely  the  expression  of  individuals — there  was  no  guarantee  that 
the  hooks  would  be  amended.  Weeks  and  months  might  be  sjient  in  examin¬ 
ing  the  books,  and  then  the  approbation  of  the  Board  was  necessary  in  order 
to  cfl'ect  the  alteration.  Did  they  say  that  it  should  be  given  ?  Never. 

I  pass  now  to  another  point,  for  observe,  I  do  not  at  all  think  myself  called 
on  to  say  one  word  in  vindication  of  the  able  and  eloquent  and  satisfactory  re¬ 
port  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  (Cheers.)  That  is  not  necessary.  The  language 
of  that  document  will  be  its  owm  vindication,  when  the  petty  sophistries  raised 
against  it  shall  have  been  long  forgotten  ;  for,  be  assured,  gentlemen,  that  what¬ 
ever  may  be  the  temporary  opposition  to  any  public  measure,  from  the  moment 
that  there  is  discovered  to  be  inherent  in  it — of  its  essence — a  principle  of  jus- 


192 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


tice  and  equality,  its  ultimate  triumph  is  certain,  and  all  the  opposition  which 
it  encounters  will  have  no  more  effect  on  it,  than  that  of  the  breeze  which 
passes  over  the  ocean,  ruffling  its  surface,  but  destroying  nothing  of  the 
mighty  and  majestic  element  which  it  seems  to  fret  and  disturb.  (Cheers.) 

I.  take  up  this,  then,  not  to  vindicate  the  report,  but  rather  in  reference  to 
the  insulting  attempt,  as  I  will  call  it,  to  deprive  Catholics  of  the  free  exercise 
of  their  own  consciences,  and  the  respect  and  esteem  of  their  fellow-citizens. 
In  reasoning  on  the  subject,  observe  the  course  that  is  taken  by  Mr.  Cornell — 
he  enters  into  a  comparison  between  the  schools  of  the  Public  School  Society, 
and  ours — ours  supported  in  poverty,  the  humblest  that  may  be,  but  still  sup¬ 
ported  in  a  way  sufficient  to  show  our  determination  not  to  give  up  our  rights, 
or  relinquish  the  maintenance  and  defence  of  a  sound  and  patriotic  principle. 
But  this  gentleman  compares  these,  our  schools,  with  theirs  on  which  more 
than  a  million  of  the  public  money  has  been  erpendef  whilst  we  have  been 
virtually  shut  out  from  all  benefit  from  the  public  funds,  not  by  any  law  of  the 
State,  but  by  a  vicious  interpretation  of  the  law.  He  requires  us  to  furnish  as 
perfect  a  system  as  they  do,  with  the  expenditure  of  a  million  of  dollars  !  He 
is  reasoning  with  the  Secretary,  telling  him  in  effect  that  we  are  troublesome 
and  designing  people,  and  he  says : 

“  But  having  in  view  the  striugency  with  which  the  same  party  insisted  on  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  religion  in  juxtaposition  with  secular  education,  and  the  warmth  with  which 
they  denounced  the  Public  School  system  when  they  saw  fit  to  charge  it  with  exclud¬ 
ing  religion,  and  particularly  when  reference  is  had  to  their  acotoed  dogma,  that  there  is 
no  hope  of  salvation  to  those  not  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church— which  dogma  is  now  taught 
in  their  schools.” 

I  thank  God,  that  the  Catholics — the  long-oppressed  of  three  hundred  years, 
during  which  the  ear  of  the  world  was  poisoned  with  calumnies  against  them 
— have  now  liberty  of  speech,  and  ability  to  exercise  it,  and  I  cafi  Mr.  Cornell 
to  account  for  what  he  has  here  written,  and  to  which  he  has  affixed  his  name, 
lie  says :  “  When  reference  is  had  to  their  avowed  dogma,  that  there  is 

no  hope  of  salvation  to  those  not  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church — which 
dogma  is  now  taught  in  theinjschools.” 

The  Catholics  avow  every  “  dogma  ”  of  their  religion ;  but  the  two  state¬ 
ments  emjjloyed  by  Mr.  Cornell  are  hot\\  false.  It  never  w'as  and  never  can 
be  a  dogma  of  ours,  that  there  is  “  No  hope  of  salvation  to  those  not  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.”  Neither  is  that  dogma  taught  in  our  schools. 
This  false  statement  must  be  accounted  for  by  Mr.  Cornell’s  ignorance  of 
our  doctrine  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  his  disposition  to  injure  us. 
I  call  upon  him,  I  arraign  him  before  the  people  of  New  York  and  the 
Senate,  whose  confidence  he  has  attempted  to  abuse,  to  prove  his  statement, 
or  else  to  retract  it. 

And  here  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  explain  something  of  this  matter, 
for  I  know  that  in  the  minds  of  Protestants  almost  universally  there  is  that 
idea,  and  that  in  the  theological  language  of  the  Catholic  Cburch  there  is 
a])parent  ground  for  entertaining  it.  But  at  the  same  time  I  do  know  that 
that  language,  properly  understood  and  fairly  interpreted,  does  not  imply  the 
dogma  imputed  to  us  by  Mr.  Cornell. 

It  is  very  true  that  we  believe  that  out  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ  there 
is  no  salvation — first  proposition. 

It  is  true  that  we  believe  the  Catholic  Church  to  be  the  true  Church  of 
Christ — second  proposition. 

It  is  very  true  that  notwithstanding  these  propositions,  there  is  no  dogma 
of  our  creed  which  teaches  that  a  Pi’otestant  may  not  hope  to  be  saved,  or 
may  not  go  to  heaven.  Now,  how  is  this  explained  ?  In  this  wmy.  When 
we  speak  of  the  Church  we  mean  the  Church  as  Christ,  and  his  apostles  did 
—in  the  sense,  that  tlie  ordinary  means  for  the  salvation  of  mankind  are  the 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEROLL  HALL. 


193 


doctrines  and  institutions  which  Jesus  left  on  earth,  which  have  all  descended 
in  the  Church  with  our  history  and  our  name.  This  we  believe,  but  we  do 
not  believe  that  God  has  deprived  Himself,  because  He  instituted  these  things, 
of  the  means  of  saving  whom  He  will.  We  do  not  believe  that  on  this  ac¬ 
count  the  power  of  the  Almighty  is  abridged.  Hence  it  is  consistent  with 
our  dogmas  to  believe,  that  God,  who  is  a  just  Judge,  as  well  as  a  merciful 
Father,  will  not  condemn  any  one  for  involuntary  error.  Their  judgment 
will  be  individual ;  they  were  externally  out  of  the  Church,  but  was  it  by 
their  own  will  or  the  accident  of  their  birth  and  education  in  a  false  relig¬ 
ion  ?  Did  they  believe  that  religion  to  be  true,  in  good  faith,  and  in  the  sim¬ 
plicity  of  their  hearts?  Were  they  ready  to  receive  the  light  and  grace  of 
truth  as  God  might  offer  it  to  them  ?  Then,  in  that  case,  though  not  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  Catholic  Church  by  external  profession,  they  belonged  to  it  by 
their  internal  disposition. 

Consequently  we  are  not  authorised  to  deny  hope  of  salvation  to  those  not 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  unless  so  far  as  the  errors  in  which  they  have  been 
involved,  have  been  voluntary  and  culpable  on  their  part.  And  this  is  no 
new  doctrine,  as  our  opponents  would  have  seen  had  they  consulted  the 
writings  of  the  highest  authorities  in  our  Church.  St.  Thomas  Aquinas — 
one  of  the  greatest  minds  that  ever  contributed  to  enlighten  the  human  race, 
as  Protestants  themselves  acknowledge — writing  in  the  11th  or  12th  century, 
s]>eaks  of  a  man  who  is  not  even  a  Protestant  but  a  Pagan — a  man  who  has 
never  heard  of  Christ  or  of  Christianity,  and  he,  supposing  that  man  to  be 
moral — sincere — acting  according  to  the  best  lights  God  has  given  him — tells 
us,  God  would  sooner  send  an  angel  to  guide  him  to  the  way  of  salvation, 
than  that  such  an  one  should  perish.  Such  is  the  sentiment  of  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas  expressed  in  his  works,  and  his  works  are  approved  of  by  our 
Church.— How  then  can  Mr.  Cornell  or  any  other  individual  say  that  we 
enter  into  judgment  respecting  those  who  die  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Church  ? 
I  publicly  call  upon  Mr.  Cornell  to  retract  or  qualify  his  official  statement. 

Sentiments  according  with  those  I  have  quoted  from  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
I  have  myself  pu'eached  in  the  Cathedral  of  Mew  York,  and  similar  ones 
have  been  abundantly  proclaimed  by  others,  and  amongst  them  I  would 
inention  a  very  distinguished  French  Bishop — then  the  Abbe  Fressinous.  In 
the  third  volume  of  his  Conferences,  he  has  one  special  sermon  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  Exclusive  Salvation,  and  he  shows  that  of  all  Christian  denomina¬ 
tions  there  is  no  one  more  abounding  in  charity  on  this  point  than  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Church.  Tlie  same  explanations  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Bos- 
snet,  St.  Francis  of  Sales,  and  St.  Augustine.*  With  these  facts  well  known, 

*  Salvation  out  of  the  Chuech.— In  concluding  this  simple  and  brief  view  of  the 
Catholic  doctrine,  it  may  be  well  to  state  here  what  is  to  be  correctly  understood  of  that 
Catholic  sentiment,  “  Out  op  the  Church  there  is  no  salvation.” 

“  We  do  not  pretend  to  deny,  (says  Mr.  Bergier,)  that  there  are  numbers  of  men 
born  in  heresy  who  by  reason  of  their  little  light,  are  in  imincille  ignorance,  and  con¬ 
sequently  excusable  before  God :  these,  in  the  opinion  of  all  judicious  Divines,  ought 
not  to  be  ranked  with  heretics.”  This  is  the  very  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine,  (Epis. 
4.3,  ad  gloriam  et  alias,  n.  1 .)  St.  Paul  tells  us,  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus,  c.  3,  ‘  A  man 
that  is  a  heretic,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  avoid  ;  knowing  that  he  that  is 
such  a  one,  is  subverted  and  sinneth,  being  condemned  by  his  own  judgment.’  As  to 
those  who  defend  an  opinion,  either  false  or  perverse,  without  obstinacy,  and  who  have 
not  invented  it  from  a  daring  presumption,  but  received  it  from  their  parents  after  they 
were  seduced  and  had  fallen  into  error,  if  they  diligently  and  industriously  seek  for  the 
truth,  and  if  they  hold  themselves  ready  to  embrace  it  as  soon  as  they  shall  have  found 
it,  such  as  these  also  are  not  to  be  classed  with  heretics.”  L.  1,  de  Bapt.  contra  Donat, 
c.  4,  n.  5. 

“  Those  who  fall  with  heretics,  without  knowing  it,  believing  it  to  be  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ,  are  in  a  difi'erent  case  from  those  who  know  that  the  Catholic  Church  is 
spread  over  the  whole  world.” — L.  4,  c.  1,  n.  1. 

“  The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  may  have  through  the  power  of  her  spouse,  children 

13 


194 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


how  did  those  gentlemen  venture  to  take  advantage  of  their  and  onr  rela¬ 
tive  situations,  and  calumniate  us  when  we  had  no  opportunity  of  repelling 
tlie  unfair  attack  ? 

Besides,  Mr.  Cornell  says — “Which  is  now  taught  in  their,  schools.”  I 
deny  the  truth  of  that  statement,  and  demand  his  authority. 

But  now,  would  it,  think  you,  be  impro])er  on  my  part,  considering  that 
Mr.  Cornell  is  not  present,  to  intimate  some  of  the  liberties  which  he  has 
taken  with  us  in  our  absence  ? 

Througliout  this  document,  lie  has  labored  to  prove  that  we  are  Catholics, 
and  not  only  that,  but  to  show  what  our  religion  is,  though  I  am  ratlier  at  a 
loss  to  imagine  where  he  studied  Catholic  theology,  in  which  if  he  should 
persevere,  I  would  suggest  to  him  to  consult  better  authoiities  than  the 
“Journal  of  Commerce  ”  and  “Tristram  Shandy.”  (Laugliter  and  cheers.) 

Now  it  never  occurred  to  us  to  ask  of  what  religion  is  Mr.  Cornell  and 
the  Public  School  Society.  The  whole  ground  assumed  by  them  is,  that 
they  are  not  a  “  religious  society  ” — well  what  are  they  ?  Are  they  an  irre¬ 
ligious  society?  Not  at  all.  They  are  members  of  churches,  aud  I  have 
taken  the  pains  to  ascertain  that  Mr.  Cornell  is  a  member  of  Dr.  Spring's 
Church,  and  if  he  lectures  the  Catholics,  would  it  be  very  wrong  in  ine  to 
speak  of  the  doctrines  of  his  creed?  Let  us  look  at  the  Westminster  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith,  the  rule  of  Presbyterian  dogmas,  and  see  whether  Mr.  Cor¬ 
nell  opens  the  gates  of  Heaven  to  all  religious  denominations.  I  quote  from 
the  Westminster  Confession,  as  adopted  and  amended  in  the  United  States, 
and  published  by  Towar  and  Hogan,  Philadelphia.  In  page  111  it  is  said  : 
“  The  visible  church  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess 
the  true  religion.” 

So  to  be  a  member  of  the  visible  church,  you  must  “  profess  ”  the  true 
fiiith — “  together  with  their  children  ” — happy  children  !  (a  laugh) — “  and 
this  is  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  ancl  family  of 
God,  OUT  OP  WHICH  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  qf  salvation.” 

Here  is  another  statement  of  Mr.  Cornell :  “  They  are  not  merely  the  in¬ 

cidental  remarks  of  the  historian,  or  extracts  from  the  Holy  Scrijitures, 
‘  without  note  or  comment,’  to  which  such  strong  exception  has  been  taken 
in  relation  to  the  Public  Schools,  but  they  are  such  as  ever  have,  and  in  the 
opinion  of  your  remonstrants,  must  ever  tend,  if  sustained  by  tax  wiposed 
upon  the  anathematized  portion  of  the  community,  to  destroy  public  har¬ 
mony  ;  and  such  as  would  prove  anything  rather  than  a  social  ‘  benefit.’  ” 

No-w,  by  using  the  word  “anathematized”  he  conveys  the  impression 
that  all  out  of  the  pale  of  ourChurch  are  under  our  anathema.  I  demand 
the  proof.  I  have  studied  our  holy  religion  many  a  day,  but  never  yet 
have  I  discovered  any  such  anathema,  and  I  defy  Mr.  Cornell  to  point  it 
out. 

Mr.  Cornell  goes  on  to  say :  “  Your  remonstrants  had  supposed  that  the 
fact  of  the  Public  School  Society  being  composed  of  men  professing  every 
variety  of  religious  faith,  would  neutralize  sectarian  tendencies  and  secure  it 
acjainst  abuse." 

Now,  there  is  something  exceedingly  specious  in  this,  but  it  is  indeed  a 
very  spurious  position.  They  refuse  our  application  on  the  ground  that 
we  are  a  religious  society,  and  when  w’e  charge  them  with  not  being 
a  religious  society,  they  re]iudiate  it  as  a  stigma  on  their  character. 
And  what  is  their  remedy  ?  That  they  “  will  neutralize  sectarian  tenden¬ 
cies  by  the  variety  of  the  religions  that  they  introduce.”  How  is  this  ? 
They  are  all  members  of  churches — and  that  does  them  honor — but  when- 

and  servants ;  if  they  grow  not  proud,  they  shall  have  part  in  His  inheritance ;  but 
if  they  are  proud,  they  shall  remain  without.”  Ibid.  c.  16,  n.  23. 


SPEECHES  IN  CAPvROLL  HALL. 


195 


ever  they  come  within  the  magical  circle  of  their  official  character,  then, 
like  negative  and  positive  brought  together  in  just  proj^ortions,  they  neu¬ 
tralize  each  other  ! !  Is  this  really  the  position  that  these  gentlemen  as¬ 
sume  ?  How  are  the  Trustees  chosen  ?  In  the  most  beautiful  manner  !  One 
or  two  Catholics  are  taken — a  Universalist — perchance,  and  so  of  other  de¬ 
nominations,  and  then  they  say,  “We  are  of  all  religions  !”  You  will  find 
that  the  mass  of  the  Society  belongs  to  one  sect,  of  which  little  or  nothing 
is  said,  and  that  an  odd  one  is  taken  from  each  of  the  other  sects,  to  sanc¬ 
tify  their  acts  !  There  is  a  sufficient  majority  of  one  denomination.  There 
is  a  tendency  and  aim  which  I  am  not  unwdlling  to  proclaim — a  secret  un¬ 
derstanding — not  so  very  secret  either — to  the  effect  that  “as  there  is  a 
large  foreign  po23ulation  in  New  York,  and  mostly  Catholic,  our  liberties 
would  not  be  safe  unless  the  interests  of  Catholics  were  neutralized  in  their 
eelucation.”  We  reject  that  idea  with  scorn,  that  Catholics  have  to  learn 
the  princijrles  of  liberty  from  them.  At  a  period  when  Protestantism  was 
as  little  dreamt  of  as  steam  navigation.  Catholics  were  the  schoolmasters  of 
liberty  to  the  nations  of  the  world,  in  the  principles  of  liberty.  They  were 
Catholics  who  wwung  the  great  charter  of  English  liberty  from  •  the  hands 
of  the  tyrant.  And  was  that  their  first  effort  in  the  cause  of  freedom  ?  No. 
That  was  only  the  written  recognition  of  their  rights,  which  the  encroach¬ 
ments  of  his  jrredecessors  had  diminished,  and  having  thus  secured  their 
rights,  they  maintained  them  down  to  the  jieriod  of  the  Reformation,  when 
their  high  and  honorable  notions  of  liberty  were  tramjjled  in  the  dust,  and 
were  never  restored  till  the  Revolution,  and  when  that  so  boasted  event  in 
the  history  of  England  took  place,  it  only  recognized  the  rights  lost  at  the 
period  of  the  Reformation,  which  Catholics  for  centuries  before  had  known 
and  enjoyed.  Let  them  not  say,  then,  that  our  religion  is  inimical  to  lib¬ 
erty — that  is  a  rejrroach  which  we  spurn — which  vre  aljojninate  and  abhor ! 
We  have  nothing  to  learn  from  them  of  human  liberty.  Their  part  is  to 
imitate  us,  not  ours  to  imitate  them  1  (Loud  air{)lause.) 

If  that  is  the  jorinciple  referred  to,  we  understand  it  irerfectly  wmll,  and 
it  is  of  no  use  for  those  gentlemen  to  moot  it  for  the  i)urpose  of  showing  that 
our  claim  should  be  denied.  Was  that  indeed  their  object?  Not  at  all. 
But  their  object  was,  with  hands  that  should  have  been  better  employed, 
to  rake  ujj  that  wretched  remnant  of  prejudice  against  us,  and  jiander  to 
the  vitiated  taste  that  could  relish  it, 

We  see,  then,  that  so  far  as  this  “  Remonstrance”  is  concerned,  there  is  not 
one  solitary  pro2)osition  which  should  for  one  moment  have  arrested  the 
minds  of  the  Legislature.  The  bill  proposed  by  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
State  contemplated  no  sirecial  favor.  Much  as  I  honor  that  distinguished 
individual,  I  would  not  esteem  him,  as  I  do,  if  he  had  in  his  bill  proposed 
anything  which  should  have  raised  us  above  our  fellow-citizens  of  other 
denominations.  But  the  bill  only  places  us  on  an  equality  with  others— 
with  that  we  are  satisfied— with  nothing  less  will  we  ever  be  satisfied. 
(Loud  cheers.) 

But,  hitherto,  these  gentlemen  have  assumed  various  shapes.  They  have 
viewed  with  self-comjrlacency  the  beauty  of  their  system,  and  as  for  their 
few  schools — few  in  comparison  with  the  number  of  destitute  and  unjjro- 
vided  children— I  have  nothing  to  say  against  them.  I  projjosed  to  place 
our  schools  under  their  direction,  so  far  as  regarded  their  jiolice  and  man¬ 
agement.  But  I  would  not  permit  them  to  teach  our  children  that  Catho¬ 
lics  were  deceitful — that  Galileo  was  put  into  the  Inquisition  and  punished 
for  the  heresy  that  the  earth  revolved  on  its  own  axis  around  the  sun. 
Galileo’s  crime  was  not  teaching  sound  jffiilosophy,  but  bad  theology — 
wishing  the  Church  to  declare  that  his  theory  was  in  accordance  with  the 
Scriptures.  For  reasons  like  these  I  would  not  allow  them  to  mislead  our 


196 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


children,  but  I  was  willing  to  allow  the  gentlemen  the  external  manage 
ment  of  our  schools.  They,  however,  would  have  universal  mile,  or  none 
at  all. 

What  has  been  their  panacea  for  all  complaints  ?  To  invite  the  City 
Council  to  visit  the  schools  !  And  certainly,  I  presume,  it  would  be  impos¬ 
sible  to  visit  their  schools,  without  being  satisfied  with  thei”  appearance. 
But  had  I  been  able  to  have  made  my  voice  heard  in  the  Senate  of  the 
State,  when  they  made  the  proposition  to  visit  their  schools,  I  should  have 
proposed  something  like  an  amendment.  I  would  have  prayed  these  sen¬ 
ators,  in  the  name  of  humanity  and  their  country,  and  of  all  the  benevo¬ 
lence  that  beats  in  the  human  breast,  to  visit — not  the  schools,  but  the 
lanes  and  alleys  and  obscure  resorts  of  the  poor  neglected  children  of  New 
York,  and  there  see,  not  how  much  is  done,  but  how  much  is  left  undone. 
These  are  the  portions  of  the  city  that  should  be  visited.  It  is  utterly  im- 
2)ossible,  owing  to  their  scattered  condition,  to  learn  the  numbers  of  chil- 
di'en  in  this  city  who  are  deprived  by  these  gentlemen  of  the  blessings  of 
education.  We,  who  mingle  with  the  people,  and  have  the  opiDortunity  of 
learning  the  dislike  of  this  system— that  they  would  no  more  trust  their 
children  to  it,  than  to  that  tyrannical  system  of  British  misgovernment 
which  their  fathers  knew  so  well,  and  from  which  they  derived  that  sad 
legacy  of  ignorance  and  poverty.  I  refer  to  the  laws  which  made  educa¬ 
tion  a  crime  in  Ireland,  and  which  have  left  the  inhabitants  of  that  coimtry 
the  degraded  but  unbroken  people  that  they  are  to  this  day,  after  a  perse¬ 
cution  of  three  hundred  years.  (Cheers.) 

It  is  for  these  poor,  neglected,  uneducated  children,  that  I  jdead.  Their 
parents  will  not  send  them  to  the  Public  School  whilst  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  I  ajiprove  of  their  resolution.  I  trust  they  never  will  send 
their  children  to  schools  managed  by  men  vdio  can  send  to  the  Senate  of 
this  State  a  burlesque  upon  our  creed,  and  represent  it  as  a  genuine 
exhibition  of  our  faith  and  principles.  Bather  will  we  trust  to  the  kind 
and  merciful  Providence  of  God,  than  voluntarily  relinquish  a  i?riucii>le  by 
which  we  maintain  the  right  imjilanted  in  the  breast  of  every  jiarent,  and 
secured  by  the  laws,  to  have  a  voice  in  the  education  of  his  child.  It  is 
these  children  that  should  be  visited.  Then  would  these  Honorable  Sen¬ 
ators,  whom  I  know  to  be  above  all  those  petty  jirejudices  which  have  been 
apiiealed  to,  do  justice,  and  apply  a  remedy  so  far  as  the  law  would  au¬ 
thorize  them. 

I  must  now  soon  conclude  my  remarks  for  this  evening.  I  will  merely 
refer  to  the  objection  of  the  Society  to  the  bill  of  Mr.  Spencer — its  tendency 
to  introduce  party  politics.  Everything  is  held  in  this  country  to  be  in  the 
hands  of  the  jieoiile;  yet  these  gentlemen,  after  enjoying  a  monopoly  for 
sixteen  years,  think  it  a  great  misfortune  if  the  tax-jiayers  should  be 
allowed  a  voice  at  all  in  the  selection  of  the  teachers  in  the  schools  which 
they  supjjort,  or  any  share  whatever  in  their  management. 

The  next  objection  to  the  bill  is,  its  want  of  uniformity.  Because  they 
hapjjen  to  have  school-houses  exactly  one  like  the  other,  and  have  a  uni¬ 
form  style  of  books,  the  large,  and  liberal,  and  statesmanlike  j)lan  of  the 
Honorable  Secretary  should  be  given  up,  because,  forsooth,  these  “humble 
almoners”  jDrouounce  it  void  of  uniformity  !  “  Humble  almoners,”  who, 

after  coiling  their  roots  around  the  Common  Council,  and  making  them 
judges  in  the  cause,  go  to  Albany  to  defeat  our  claims.  Well,  they  may  call 
themselves  “  humble  almoners”  if  they  ifiease,  but  they  remind  me  very 
much  of  the  beggar  in  Gil  Bias,  who,  when  he  asked  alms,  always  took  good 
care  to  have  his  musket  ready  ! 

I  have  now  gone  briefly  through  this  part  of  the  subject,  and  I  ask  you 
whether  we  can  have  any  confidence  in  men  who  can  stoop  to  such  artifices 


SPEECHES  IN  CARROLL  HALL. 


197 


as  I  have  exposed  ?  I  call  upon  them  to  vindicate  themselves  from  the 
dishonor  of  having  circulated  that  document  from  Tristram  Shandy.  It 
was  done  by  one  of  their  colleagues  and  their  official  agent,  who  when 
charged  with  it,  rej)lied  that  he  had  done  so  under  instructions? 
What  instructions  ?  Did  they  instruct  him  ?  If  not,  let  them 
say  so  by  a  public  act.  Until  they  do  so,  we  justly  charge  them 
with  being  the  traducers  of  our  reputation — I  charge  them  on 
the  ground  that  they  are  responsible  for  the  act  of  their  agent, 
and  they  should  have  known  better.  Gentlemen  claiming  to  be  ex¬ 
clusively  the  judges  of  what  is  a  proper  system  of  education — who  hold 
that  you  are  unworthy  of  having  anything  to  do  with  the  schools  of  ISIew 
York — should  have  known  that  that  document  was  from  Tristram 
Shandy,  MU'itten,  I  presume,  for  his  amusement  by  Mr.  Sterne — who,  though 
numbered  amongst  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  believed  to 
be  an  infidel — a  man,  who  secretly  scoffed  at  every  thing  sacred — and  the 
working  of  whose  rank  imagination  is  too  offensive  for  the  eye  of  delicacy. 
Surely,  then,  these  gentlemen  should  not  have  drawn  weapons  from  such  a 
source,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  reputation  of  any  class  of  their 
fellow-citizens. 

This  is  not  the  first  occasion  on  which  we  have  been  misrepresented,  and 
religious  gentlemen,  wffiose  avowed  purpose  it  is  to  j)reach  the  gospel  of 
peace,  have  taken  up  the  habit  of  abusing  us,  and  have  rung  the  changes 
on  this  topic,  till  in  some  instances  some  of  their  audiences — more  liberal 
than  they — have  left  the  place  disgusted.  They  remind  me  of  a  saying  of 
this  same  Sterne,  who  when  quizzing  the  credulity  of  the  peojile  of  Eng¬ 
land — for  he  w’as  a  great  wag — said  that  occasionally  he  was  straitened 
for  the  jH'ice  of  a  dinner,  but  he  could  always  manage  to  make  a  good  meal 
of  Cheshire  cheese  ;  but  it  also  happened,  that  oftentimes  he  was  in  a  similar 
strait  in  his  official  capacity,  and  was  called  on  to  jn’each  when  he  had  not 
a  w'ord  of  a  sermon  prepared,  and  then  he  took  “  a  fling  at  Popery.”  The 
people  w'ent  away  edifiecl  and  delighted.  For  this  reason  he  says,  “  I  call 
Popery  my  Cheshire  cheese  !’  (Loud  laughter.)  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
occupants  of  half  the  pulpits  of  New  York,  are  nearly  in  the  same  predica¬ 
ment,  and  would  die  of  inanition,  w'ere  it  not  that  their  stock  of  “Cheshire 
cheese  ”  is  still  unexhausted.  (Renewed  laughter  and  applause.) 

1  think  I  can  safely  say,  that  in  none  of  our  churches  wall  you  hear  such 
abuse.  We  never  touch  upon  secular  affairs — you  will  not' even  hear  from 
our  puljnts,  harangues  about  abolition.  We  explain  and  defend  our  creed, 
and  I  trust,  preach  charity,  and  peace,  and  order.  But  it  is  not  so  with 
those  who  assail  us  as  I  have  described,  as  I  will  have  occasion  to  show, 
wdien  treating  of  Mr.  Ketchum’s  speech,  which  I  intend  to  do  on  to-mor¬ 
row  evening. 

The  Bishop  then  concluded,  after  speaking  nearly  two  hours,  and  a  vote 
of  thanks  having  been  passed  to  the  Chairman,  the  large  and  attentive 
meeting  adjourned. 


THURSDAY  EVENING,  June  17th. 

The  audience  on  this  occasion  was  still  more  numerous  than  on  the  pre¬ 
vious  evening.  Several  distinguished  senators,  and  influential  gentlemen 
of  other  denominations,  were  present.  The  meeting  was  organized  by  the 
appoiittment  of  the  same  Chairman  who  presided  at  the  former  meeting — 
and  at  eight  o’clock 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  resumed  his  remarks  as  follows ;  The 


198 


A.ECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


question,  Gentlemen,  which  has  called  ns  together,  has  had  two  stages  oi 
progress  which  must  be  kept  distinct,  in  order  to  comprehend  its  present 
position.  We  have  from  time  to  time  apidicd  to  the  Common  Council  of 
this  city  for  relief,  which  we  knew  they  had  the  power  to  grant,  and  wo 
had  applied  as  it  were  in  an  isolated,  and,  if  you  jdease,  in  a  someAvhat 
sectarian  character.  The  reason  of  this  will  be  easily  understood,  when 
you  reflect  that  we  had  no  intention  to  disturb  the  system  of  education  so 
generally  approved  by  our  fellow-citizens.  Our  object  was  not  to  destroy 
that  which  was  good  for  others,  if  they  thought  so,  but  to  find  something 
that  might  be  ecpially  good  for  ourselves.  Accordingly,  we  ap]jlicd  as 
Catholics,  because  it  apiieared  that  there  were  no  other  denominations 
whose  consciences  suffered  under  the  operation  of  that  system.  And  we 
did  suppose  that  these  considerations  would  have  had  some  weight  with 
the  Honorable  Council.  We  might — as  we  are  rej^roached  with  not  having 
done — we  might  have  interfered  with  the  regulations  of  these  schools — 
asked  for  a  different  order  of  books — required  the  erasure  of  such  and  such 
passages,  and  the  insertion  of  others.  They  reproach  us  with  not  doing  so. 
But  if  we  had  done  so,  it  would,  in  the  first  place,  have  been  pains  thrown 
away,  and  in  the  second  place,  we  might  thereby  have  disobliged  many  of 
our  fellow-citizens  of  other  denominations.  Without  at  all  jjressing  the 
question  upon  them,  farther  than  observing  that  even  the  reading  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  according  to  the  Protestant  version,  was  looked  upon  by 
us  as  an  invasion  of  our  conscientious  rights,  they  took  it  up  as  an  objec¬ 
tion  against  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  at  all ;  as  if  the  presence  of  a 
Bible  within  the  walls  of  a  school  was  a  thing  we  could  not  bear.  It  is 
needless  to  say  how  wrong  that  inference  was.  But  we  did  not  at  all  wish 
to  disturb  the  Protestant’s  approbation  of  Im  version  of  the  sacred  volume, 
nor  the  order  that  seemed  so  generally  ajjjjroved,  and  that  was  the  reason 
of  the  mode  of  our  application.  In  the  course  of  my  speech,  therefore,  you 
■will  understand,  that  we  did  not  so  apply  for  reliof,  because  we  wished  to 
\be  apart,  separate  from  the  rest  of  the  community — that  it  w^as  not  because 
we  were  exclusive  or  intolerant,  as  they  have  charged  upon  us ;  but  because 
we  supposed  that  they  would  not  wish  to  have  their  children  hear  the 
Catholic  version  of  the  Bible  read,  and  therefore  they  have  no  right  to  im¬ 
pose  on  our  children  the  hearing  of  the  Protestant  version.  If  that  be 
sectarianism,  then  we  jAead  guilty  to  the  charge  ;  but  without  feeling  and 
acting  so,  we  could  not  have  our  consciences  simple,’and  in  their  integrity 
upright  towards  God. 

when,  however,  after  having  gone  through  the  ceremony — for  it  was 
nothing  else — of  appearing  before  the  Common  Council,  and  having  been 
heard  and  denied,  as  a  matter  of  course,  wdien  we  had  gone  through  the 
ceremony  required  by  the  formulary  of  the  law,  then,  indeed,  we  threw  our¬ 
selves  on  our  general  rights  as  citizens,  and  appealed  to  that  tribunal,  to 
which  w’e  must  ahvays  look  Avith  confidence  for  the  redress  of  every  griev¬ 
ance  that  i^resses  on  us  in  our  social  condition.  Nevertheless  our  opponents 
followed  us  there,  and  fastened  upon  us  the  character,  in  wdiich  it  had  been 
the  duty  imposed  on  us  by  necessity  to  appear  before  the  Common  Council. 
We  have  had  occasion  already  to  point  out  some  evidences  of  the  use  made 
of  that  in  the  “  Remonstrance.”  You  read  with  what  recklessness  of  truth 
— I  am  sorry  to  say — it  was  charged  In  that  document,  that  we  were  in¬ 
tolerant — that  we  taught  there  was  no  salvation  out  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  so  forth.  There  are  in  that  document  of  the  Public  School  Society, 
many  other  passages  requiring  examination,  but  as  the  substance  of  them 
is  contained  in  the  speech  of  the  learned  gentleman  who  was  their  official 
«rgan  before  the  Senate,  I  suppose  that  the  refutation  of  the  one,  v.'ill  be 
the  refutation  of  both ;  and,  therefore,  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  refer  further 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEROLL  HALL. 


199 


to  that  memorial.  They — that  gentleman  jrarticularly — referred  in  the 
course  of  the  debate,  to  a  projiosition  for  accommodation  on  the  part  of 
the  Society  previous  to  the  last  decision  of  tlie  Public  Council.  They 
alleged  that  nothing  could  be  fairer,  but  when  we  had  examined  that,  we 
found  that  of  not  a  solitary  grievance  of  which  we  had  complained  did  it 
take  notice.  Not  the  slightest  notice.  The  whole  projiosal  was  that  they 
should  correct  the  books,  so  far  as  their  guardianship  of  the  rights  of  con¬ 
science — for  they  are  conscience  keepers  for  the  different  sects  in  this  com¬ 
munity  ! — would  allow.  They  would  accommodate  us  by  striking  out 
passages  insulting  and  offensive  to  our  minds,  and  injurious  to  our  children. 
That  was  all  the  amount  of  the  concessions.  Then  the  second  proposition 
was,  that  they  would  iDurchase  from  us — they  can  afford  to  do  so — the  only 
school-house  which  our  humble  means  have  enabled  us  to  erect  during  the 
sixteen  years  of  privation  from  the  benefits  of  Common  School  Education. 
These  were  the  only  two  features  that  distinguished  that  offer  of  accommo¬ 
dation.  But  Mr.  Ketchum  did  not  find  it  convenient  to  read  the  proposi¬ 
tions  that  we  submitted  at  the  same  time,  and  wdiich,  candor  should  have 
acknowledged,  removed  from  us  every  imputation  of  being  actuated  by 
sectarian  motives,  or  having  in  view  the  appropriation  of  the  public  money 
to  the  propagation  of  our  religion. 

I  will  now  commence  with  reading  but  a  small  portion  of  that,  sufficient, 
however,  to  show  you  that  on  this  ground,  so  far  as  information  was  con¬ 
cerned,  they  had  it ;  and  if,  with  that  in  their  possession,  they  conceal  the 
truth,  and  suppressed  it,  on  their  heads  be  the  responsibility  that  attaches 
to  such  conduct. 

What  is  the  great  difficulty — the  legal  difficulty  ?  That  public  money 
can  not  be  apjilied  to  sectarian  uses'.  Very  well.  We  met  that ;  we  said 
here  are  propositions  that  cover  our  whole  ground : 

“  That  there  shall  be  reserved  to  the  Managers  or  Trustees  of  these  schools  respec¬ 
tively,  the  designation  of  the  teachers  to  be  appointed,  who  shall  be  subjected  to  the 
examination  of  a  Committee  of  the  Public  School  Society,  shall  be  fully  qualified  for  the 
duties  of  their  appointment,  and  of  unexceptionable  moral  character;  or  in  the  event  of 
the  Trustees  or  Managers  failing  to  present  individuals  for  these  situations  of  that 
description,  then,  individuals  having  like  qualifications  of  unexceptionable  character,  to 
be  selected  and  appointed  by  the  Public  School  Society,  who  shall  be  acceptable  to  the 
Managers  or  Trustees  of  the  Schools  to  which  they  shall  be  appointed  ;  but  no  person 
to  be  continued  as  a  teacher  in  either  of  the  schools  referred  to  against  the  wishes  of  the 
Managers  or  Trustees  thereof.” 

Tliat  was  the  first  proposition,  showing  them  that  so  far  as  the  teachers 
were  concerned,  all  we  wanted  were  men  in  whom  we  could  place  conli- 
dcnce.  The  second  proposition  was  : 

“  2d.  That  the  school  shall  be  open  at  all  times  to  the  inspection  of  any  authorized 
agent  or  officer  of  the  city  or  State  government,  with  liberty  to  visit  the  same,  and  ex¬ 
amine  the  books  used  therein,  or  the  teachers,  touching  the  course  and  system  of  in¬ 
struction  pursued  in  the  schools,  or  in  relation  to  any  matter  connected  therewith.” 

So  that  there  was  no  concealment  there,  they  themselves  should  be  the 
inspectors,  and  I  will  say  it  boldly,  that  if  they  had  been  actuated  by  that 
deep  feeling  of  humanity  for  which  they  claim  credit,  they  would  have  ac¬ 
cepted  that  jirojiosal  to  take  our  children  under  their  care  affording  to  them 
the  same  means  of  gaining  future  happiness  as  they  did  to  others. 

The  document  goes  on  : 

“  The  undersigned  are  willing  that,  in  the  superintendence  of  their  schools,  every 
specifiqd  requirement  of  any  and  every  law  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  or 
the  ordinances  of  the  Common  Council,  to  guard  against  abuse  in  the  matter  of  common 
school  education,  shall  be  rigidly  enforced  and  exacted  by  the  competent  public  authori¬ 
ties. 

“  They  believe  that  the  benevolent  object  of  every  such  law  is  to  bring  the  means  of 
education  within  the  reach  of  the  child  of  every  poor  rn.m,  without  damaging  their  re¬ 
ligion,  whatever  it  may  be,  or  the  religious  rights  of  any  such  child  or  parent. 


200 


ARCHBISIIOr  HUGHES. 


“  It  is  in  consequence  of  what  they  consider  the  damaging  of  their  religion  and  their 
religious  rights,  in  the  schools  of  the  Public  School  Society,  that  they  have  been  obliged 
to  withdraw  their  children  from  them.  The  facts  which  they  have  already  submitted, 
and  which  have  been  more  than  sustained  by  the  sentiments  uttered  on  behalf  of  the 
Society,  in  the  late  discussion,  prove  that  they  were  not  mistaken. 

‘‘  As  regards  the  organization  of  their  schools,  they  are  willing  that  they  should  be 
under  the  same  police  and  regulations  as  those  of  the  Public  School  Society.  The  same 
hours,  the  skme  order,  the  same  exercises,  even  the  same  inspection. 

“  But  the  books  to  be  used  for  exercises  in  learning  to  read  or  spell,  in  history,  geo¬ 
graphy,  and  all  such  elementary  knowledge,  as  could  have  a  tendency  to  operate  on 
their  liearts  and  minds,  in  reference  to  their  religion,  must  be,  so  far  as  Catholic  chil¬ 
dren  are  concerned,  and  no  farther,  such  as  they  shall  judge  proper  to  put  in  their 
hands.  But  none  of  their  dogmas,  nothing  against  the  creed  of  any  other  denomina¬ 
tion  shall  be  introduced.” 

Reference  is  here  made  to  the  sentiments  uttered  by  the  advocates  of  the 
Public  School  Society  in  their  opposition  to  our  claim  before  the  Common 
Council.  Many  of  my  present  audience  were  perhaps  there,  and  they  can 
remember  what  an  array  of  individuals  otherwise  distinguished  by  their 
character — what  an  array  of  bigotry  and  of  prejudice,  and  we  must  say,  of 
profound  ignorance,  was  presented  against  us.  One  reverend  gentleman 
came  there  and  said,  in  reference  to  our  objection  to  tlie  Protestant  reTsion 
of  the  Bible,  that  one  of  our  comments  taught  “  the  lawfulness  of  murder¬ 
ing  heretics.”  Before  the  Common  Council,  I  brought  that  gentleman  to 
account,  and  I  assure  you,  that  considering  his  grey  hairs,  and  the  respect 
that  is  due  to  age  and  the  sacred  character  of  a  minister  of  peace,  I  felt 
humbled  at  beholding  the  degraded  position  in  wdiich  he  found  himself  be¬ 
fore  I  had  done.  He  had  how'ever  obtained  a  copy  of  an  old  version  of  the 
Scriptures,  published  by  the  Catholic  refugees  iu  the  time  of  Queen  Eliza¬ 
beth,  who  wishing  to  prepare  the  way  for  an  invasion  by  the  Spanish,  wrote 
a  series  of  notes  on  the  Scriptures  which  they  thought  would  tend  to  effect 
that  end.  So  soon,  however,  as  these  notes  became  known  in  England  and 
Ireland,  they  were  scouted  with  liorror  by  all  professing  the  Catholic  name. 
A  few  copies  of  that  version,  however,  remained,  lost  and  forgotten ;  and  an 
ignorant  publisher  iu  Cork,  thinking  to  make  a  profitable  speculation,  ob¬ 
tained  one  of  them,  and  not  knowing,  as  was  afterwards  proved,  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  it  and  the  authorized  version,  he  undertook  to  publish  another 
edition  of  it.  In  the  process  of  publication,  however,  the  character  of  the 
work  became  known,  and  the  Archbishop  of  Dublin  forbade  the  publica¬ 
tion.  TJie  publisher  was  ruined,  and  he  commenced  a  suit  for  damages. 
The  matter  was  referred  to  in  Committees  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  all  the  particulars  of  the  case  were,  of  course, 
thus  given  the  greatest  possible  publicity.  Well,  the  publisher  being  de¬ 
prived  of  his  anticipated  sale  in  Ireland,  where  the  Catholics  would  not  pur¬ 
chase  such  a  book,  thought  that  by  sending  some  to  this  country,  people  as 
ignorant  as  himself  might  purchase  them,  and  thus  the  work  might  not 
prove  a  dead  loss.  In  this  way  a  copy  fell  into  the  hands  of  one  of  these 
gentlemen,  and  what  do  they  do  t  Why  about  the  same  period  that  “  Maria 
Monk  ”  was  published — and  I  know  not,  but  from  the  same  press — they 
emitted  an  edition  of  this  Bible,  in  ordef  to  excite  public  odium  against  their 
Catholic  fellow-citizens !  It  was  then,  with  a  copy  of  that  in  his  hand,  that 
that  clergyman  came  forward  to  prove,  by  means  of  that  forgery,  tliat  we 
taught  the  lawfulness  of  murdering  heretics.  Then,  besides  that,  there  was 
another  gentleman,  and  he,  in  speaking  on  the  subject  of  those  very  schools, 
and  offering  reasons  why  we  should  be  denied  the  benefits  of  education,  in¬ 
stituted  a  comparison — all  the  othefs  had,  with  great  professions  of  respect, 
and  benevolent  feelings  for  us,  said  “  it  was  not  because  we  were  Catholics, 
that  they  opposed  us,”  oh  !  no,  they  always  qualified  it — but  he  instituted  a 
comparison  between  the  religion  of  Fenelon  and  Voltaire,  and  with  marvel- 


✓ 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEROLL  HALL. 


201 


Ions  candor,  forgetting  the  preface,  admitted  that  he  opposed  ns  because  we 
were  (Jatholics !  This  gentleman  said,  that  if  he  had  no  alternative,  he 
would,  sooner  be  of  the  religion  of  Voltaire,  than  that  of  Fenelou.  These 
are  the  sentiments  to  which  I  allude,  and  to  which  reference  is  here  made, 
when  we  say  that  such  sentiments  are  only  calculated  to  strengthen  the  con¬ 
viction,  that  our  Catholic  children  from  the  prejudice*^  against  their  parent¬ 
age  and  religion,  had  no  chance  of  justice  in  those  schools. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  an  examination  of  the  schools,  make 
a  report,  and  in  that,  after  quoting  the  two  propositions  for  accommodation, 
they  take  occasion  to  say  : — “  Your  Committee  deem  it  proper  to  remark,  in 
vindication  of  the  School  Society,  that  they  were  only  one  of  the  num¬ 
erous  remonstrants  against  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners.  Their  views  were 
represented  at  the  late  discussion  before  the  Board  only  by  their  legal  ad¬ 
visers,  Messrs.  Sedgwick  and  Ketchum.  The  other  gentlemen  who  partici¬ 
pated  in  the  discussion  represented  other  bodies,  which  are  not  in  any  man¬ 
ner  connected  with  them.  Sentiments  were  uttered  by  them  which  the 
School  Society  do  not  entertain,  and  for  which  they  are  not  justly  accountable.’ 

So  they  say,  hut  by  whom  ?  .  It  would  go  abroad  that  this  was  a  declara¬ 
tion  from  the  whole  body  of  the  Public  School  Society.  I  do  not  believe 
that  was  the  fact,  and  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  it.  Because  I  do  know 
that  these  gentlemen  used,  or  at  least  admitted,  this  sentiment — this  bad  sen¬ 
timent  of  their  associates — for  the  purpose  of  defeating  us,  and  they  were 
])erfectly  satisfied  with  the  victory,  without  at  all  disclaiming  the  dishonoi’- 
able  means  they  had  employed  to  secure  it.  But  as  easily  could  the  English 
efface  the  stigma  that  rests  upon  them  from  their  employment  of  the  Indian’s 
tomahawk,  during  their  warfare  with  America.  And  I  ask  them  is  there  on 
their  records,  a  disapproval  of  the  declaration  of  Dr.  Spring,  or  of  Di-. 
Bond  ? — ^tlie  one,  that  we  would  murder  heretics,  and  the  other,  that  tlie 
religion  of  Voltaire  was  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  Fenelon?  Have  they  in 
any  one  official  document  disowned  that  ?  We  challenge  them  to  show,  that 
the  question  of  a  disclaimer  has  ever  been  mooted?  On  the  contrary,  we 
have  reason  to  believe,  that  they  approved  of  these  statements  made  by  Drs. 
Spring  and  Bond,  and  that  from  their  own  document  too,  signed  by  the 
president  and  secretary,  which  goes  nearly  as  far.  And  yet  these  are  the 
men  to  whom  we  are  required  to  give  the  management  of  the  education  of 
our  children!  They  have  hedged  education  around  with  an  impenetrable 
wall,  beyond  which  no  applicant  from  our  body  can  be  admitted,  except  on 
terms  that  violate  our  civil  and  religious  rights.  A  state  of  ignorance  and 
degradation  is  the  destiny  assigned  to  those  who  will  not  submit  to  their 
Procrustean  system,  to  the  dimensions  of  which  all  must  submit  to  be  adapted. 

The  Society  acknowledge  that  Messrs.  Ketchum  and  Sedgwick  are  their 
official  organs.  Well,  we  find  Mr.  Sedgwick  in  the  speech  referred  to  on  last 
evening,  absolutely  disclaiming  the  teaching  of  religion.  He  said  it  was  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  what  was  called  religious  instruction,  meant  anything 
more  than  simple  morality,  which  he  stated  to  be  the  basis  of  all  religion. 
And  do  these  gentlemen  intend  to  reverse  the  order  of  the  Almighty,  and  by 
giving  this  [)recedence  to  morality,  to  say  that  men  must  be  good  without  a 
motive,  and  then  they  may  learn  religion  ?  How  then  can  they  quarrel  with 
us  for  saying,  that  they  attempted,  what  Mr.  Spencer  says  well,  is  impossible, 
to  divorce  religion  from  education  ?  It  was  on  that  ground  that  they  appeared 
before  the  Common  Council  and  defeated  our  claims :  for  you  saw  yesterday 
and  to-day,  the  crime  charged  upon  us,  the  disqualifying  circumstance,  was, 
that  we  belonged  to  a  religious  society,  and  the  public  money  was  not  to  be 
appropriated  in  any  way  except  in  the  promotion  of  “  purely  secular  educa¬ 
tion.”  AVTien  we  told  them,  that  we  supposed  they  were  sincere  in  their 
declaration,  and  that  by  divorcing  religion  from  education,  thus  leaving  the 


202 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


cliildren  without  t.ie  necessary  motive  to  virtue  and  morality,  and  wholly  des 
titute  of  any  principle  to  curb  their  rising  passions,  they  seemed  to  exclaim, 
“  Oh !  what  an  impious  set  of  raeu  you  suppose  us  to  be.  Atheists !  ”  No 
not  exactly,  but  I  accuse  you  of  being  what  yourselves  a^ume.  You  defeat 
all  applications  made  by  applicants  professing  religion.  You  contend  that 
religion  mast  not  be  any  part  of  state  education.  Well  then  how  can  you 
be  dissatisfied  if  we  call  you  anti-religious,  according  to  the  principles  you 
have  yourselves  assumed  ? 

The  fact  is,  that  in  order  to  conciliate  those  whose  minds  are  haunted  by 
a  certain  spectre,  of  a  union  between  Church  and  State,  and  in  order  to 
bring  them  to  the  support  of  the  Society,  they  pretended  to  meet  their  views 
exactly,  then  again,  on  the  other  hand,  attempted  to  satisfy  the  scruples  of 
conscientious  parents,  by  playing  the  several  sects  one  against  the  other,  and 
with  so  much  adroitness,  that  the  whole  community  came  to  the  desired 
conclusion,  that  the  interests  of  education  and  morality  were  perfectly  safe 
in  the  hands  of  the  Society,  and  could  not  be  safe  in  the  hands  of  any  other. 

In  taking  up  the  speech  of  Mr.  Ketchum,  I  must  premise  that  he  has 
divided  it  into  two  parts,  and  that  of  the  many  columns  by  which  it  is  sup- 
pjorted,  the  first  two  or  three  are  occupied  with  a  detailed  history  of  the 
legislation,  so  called,  of  the  Common  Council  on  this  question.  Now,  I 
understand  the  part  of  this  gentleman — who  has  perhaps  as  deep  a  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  mystery  of  political  wire-drawing  as  any  other  gentleman  of  his 
profession  in  the  State — I  understand  his  introduction  of  this  matter,  entirely 
foreign  to  the  subject.  His  object  was  to  impress  the  minds  of  the  Senators 
with  the  idea  that  in  New  York,  the  question  had  been  decided — that  Boards 
of  Aldermen  had  been  changed — the  position  of  parties  changed — applica¬ 
tions  had  been  made,  from  time  to  time,  for  sixteen  years,  and  that  after  the 
gravest  reflection,  under  all  possible  variety  of  circumstances,  the  answer 
uniformly  was,  that  it  would  be  a  violation  of  something  that  he  calls  ‘‘  a 
great  principle  ” — which,  however,  he  does  not  think  proper  to  define— if  our 
claims  were  admitted.  Tie  wished  to  convey  the  idea  that  if  there  had  been 
any  thing  just,  or  proper,  or  true  in  our  claims,  it  could  not  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  public  officers  in  New  York — the  immediate  representatives  of  the 
people,  and  that  consequently,  the  Senators  should  approach  the  subject  with 
minds  already  biased  and  prejudiced  against  us.  The  gentleman  wished  to 
lead  the  honorable  legislators  to  say,  “  What !  shall  we  on  the  examination 
of  one  hour — at  this  distance  from  the  city  of  New  York — undertake  to 
reverse  the  jTidgment  sustained  by  the  uniform  concurrence  of  the  various 
Boards  that  have  constituted  the  public  Councils  of  that  city  for  sixteen 
years!  ”  There  was  great  generalship  in  all  that,  on  the  part  of  the  learned 
gentleman. 

But  I  dispute  the  principle,  in  toto,  which  the  gentleman  assumes,  and 
before  that  Honorable  Senate,  I  would  maintain  that  the  gentleman  has  no 
foundation  whatever,  for  his  assumption ;  and  that  this  question  should  be 
viewed  by  them  as  if  approached  for  the  first  time. 

And  what  is  my  reason  for  assuming  this  position?  You  will  mark  that 
the  learned  gentleman  frequently  styles  the  Common  Council  “  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  people;”  my  argument  in  reply,  then  is,  that  so  far  as 
regards  this  School  Question,  they  never  were  the  “representatives  of  the 
people,”  for  that  question  never  was  made  one  that  could  aftect  their  election 
in  the  most  remote  degree.  At  least,  so  we  thought.  So  far  as  we  are  con¬ 
cerned,  we  are  right.  True,  whilst  we  were  meeting  to  study  this  subject 
and  bring  it  under  public  notice,  these  gentlemen  of  the  Society  were  ever 
and  anon  charging  vs  with  political  designs,  and  I  recollect  something  of  an 
amusing  nature  connected  with  that.  It  was  my  duty  on  the  day  succeeding 
the  Debate  before  the  Common  Council,  to  proceed  to  Albany,  for  the  pur- 


SPEECHES  IN  CAKEOLL  HALL. 


203 


pose  of  giving  confirmation;  I  went — preached  three  times  next  day,  Sunday 
■ — on  Monday,  a  very  stormy  day,  I  drove  to  Troy,  for  the  purpose  of  visiting 
tlie  churclies  there,  and  on  Tuesday,  I  returned  to  this  city.  Well,  what  was 
the  story  ? — of  course,  I  do  not  say  got  up  by  these  gentlemen,  nor  by  the 
Public  Scliool  Society — but  it  was  said,  that  I,  having  taken  tea  with  tlie 
Aldermen,  a  bargain  was  struck  between  us,  and  I  was  to  go  to  Albany,  to 
get  the  Catholics  to  vote  against  the  Governor,  and  then  all  would  be  right! 
(Laughter.)  Tliat  was  a  specimen  of  the  stories  that  were  circulated  ;  but 
while  we  were  thus  charged,  they  who  brought  the  accusation  were  them¬ 
selves  not  idle  in  that  very  department.  The  subject  was  introduced  to  their 
pulpits,  and  their  congregations  were  lectured  on  it,  and  from  that  may  be 
traced  the  attempt  to  defeat  Governor  Seward. 

But  we  never  made  this  a  political  question,  and  the  Common  Council 
never  acted  on  it  “as  the  representatives  of  the  people,”  because  it  never 
was  applied  as  a  test ;  but  if  the  question  were  put  between  the  Secretary’s 
plan  and  the  Public  School  Society,  the  latter  would  soon  break  down  any 
Board  that  would  undertake  to  support  them.  We  were  denied,  it  is  true, 
by  the  Common  Council,  but  vm  never  looked  on  them  as  acting  in  tliat 
matter  as  the  representatives  of  the  people.  We  regarded  them  as  indepen¬ 
dent  judges.  And  really  there  is  little  ground  for  surprise  at  their  decisions 
in  the  premises. 

Now  I  will  suppose  a  case.  Let  us  take  that  of  a  bank,  for  it  is,  perhaps, 
as  good  an  illustration  as  I  can  furnish  at  the  moment.  A  citizen  has  a  con¬ 
troversy  with  the  bank,  and  that  controversy  comes  to  a  trial.  The  citizen 
complains  that  he  is  injured  by  the  directors  of  the  bank,  he  makes  out  his 
case,  but  in  the  end,  he  finds,  contrary  to  all  his  just  anticipations,  and  all  his 
views  of  justice,  that  he  is  defeated,  and  judgment  given  against  him.  Well, 
he  thinks  this  very  hard.  But  he  happens  to  learn  that  the  judge,  before 
whom  the  case  was  tried,  and  the  jury  who  rendered  the  verdict,  are  all 
directors  of  the  bank,  and  his  wonder  at  the  result  of  the  trial  ceases.  Do 
you  see  the  application  ?  These  gentlemen  after  having  excluded  all  religious 
societies,  made  the  word  religion  a  kind  of  disqualification  in  a  Christian 
community  in  the  year  1824 — after  that,  with  the  subtlety  which  proves  that 
they  are  v/ise  in  their  generation,  they  get  an  act  passed,  by  which  the  Com¬ 
mon  Council  are  made  ex-officio  members  of  the  Public  School  Society,  and 
thus  constituted  them  parties  and  judges  in  the  cause.  Let  me  not  be  mis¬ 
understood.  I  do  not  suppose  for  a  moment,  that  any  gentleman  of  that 
Common  Council  would,  at  any  time,  knowingly  deviate  from  the  path  of 
justice  and  duty,  on  account  of  his  official  connection  with  that  Society. 
But  at  the  same  time,  I  do  know,  that  there  is  a  powerful  influence  in  asso¬ 
ciation,  against  which  the  laws  with  great  wisdom  have  guarded  the  judicial 
bench,  when  they  declare  that  a  judge  should  be  of  a  single  mind — elevated 
far  above  all  selfish  considerations — and  whose  interests  could  never  be 
affected  by  the  result  of  any  official  act  which  he  might  be  called  on  to  exe¬ 
cute,  or  any  sentence  which  it  might  be  his  duty  to  pronounce.  Here,  tlien, 
were  aldermen  of  dififerent  parties,  elected  from  time  to  time,  and  so  made 
members — part  and  parcel — of  this  Society,  and,  I  ask,  would  it  have  been 
a  gracious  thing  in  them,  after  liavihg  been  so  honored  with  a  place  in  it,  to 
become  adverse  to  the  interests  of  that  body?  Let  us  bear  in  mind,  too, 
that  there  is  with  most  people  a  regard  for  consequences,  and  no  alderman 
could  imagine  he  would  greatly  benefit  his  interests  by  opposing  a  corpo¬ 
ration  that  has  acquired  nearly  the  whole  control  of  all  the  public  money 
appropriated  for  purposes  of  education  in  New  York,  and  having  its  de[)en- 
dents  spread  from  one  end  of  tlje  city  to  the  other.  I  think  it  would  require 
a  strong  and  elevated  mind,  an  unusual  amount  of  moral  courage,  to  enable 
any  man,  so  situated,  to  oppose  such  a  corporation. 


204 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


I  do  not,  then,  admit  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  Ketchum,  for  I  deny  hig 
premises,  that  the  Common  Council  ever  were  ‘‘  the  representatives  of  the 
people”  on  this  subject. 

I  will  now  commence  my  review  of  this  speech.  I  read  it  carefully  from 
beginning  to  end,  and  I  was  myself  impressed  with  the  idea  that  it  scarcely 
re(|uired  an  answer.  I  was  cpiite  convinced  of  that,  so  far  as  the  honorable 
Senators  were  concerned,  because  I  knew  that  to  the  minds  of  men  accus¬ 
tomed  to  reasoning  and  to  detect  at  a  glance  "where  the  strength  of  a  posi¬ 
tion  rested,  that  speech  must  have  appeared  a  thing  altogether  out  of 
place.  Nevertheless,  it  was  hinted  to  me  that  the  speech  was  not  intended 
for  Senators  alone,  and  the  readiness  with  which  Mr.  Ketchum  could  fur¬ 
nish  the  report  went  considerably  to  strengthen  that  opinion.  It  was  said 
that  though  to  me  the  speech  might  seem  weak,  yet  to  the  generality  of 
readers,  particularly  those  unacquainted  with  the  subject,  it  might  seem 
very  specious,  and  produce  in  their  minds  the  very  conclusions  opposite  to 
those  which  we  would  w'ish  established.  On  that  ground  I  have  taken  it 
up,  and  I  must  say  that  with  regard  to  Mr.  Ketchum  himself,  I  have  the 
kindest  possible  feeling ;  and  i^  in  the  course  of  my  remarks,  I  should 
happen  to  speak  in  a  manner  seemingly  disrespectful,  I  beg  it  may  not  be 
considei’ed  as  having  been  so  intended.  Of  the  gentleman  himself,  I  can¬ 
not  say  anything  disrespectful — of  his  speech  I  hope  I  may  be  permitted  to 
say  whatever  the  evidence  may  authorize.  I  mention  his  name  with  per¬ 
fect  freedom,  because  his  name  is  attached  to  the  speed),  and  because  prin¬ 
cipally  he  is  the  official  organ  of  that  Society,  and  what  he  says  is  already 
endorsed  by  them. 

After  his  introduction,  Mr.  Ketchum  says :  “  This  probably  may  account 
very  sensibly  for  the  fact,  that  in  the  city  of  New  York  the  portion  of  the 
school  fund  allotted  to  her,  was  to  be  distributed  by  these  almoners  of  her 
charity  whom  her  representatives  thought  proper  to  designate.  Now,  I 
ask,  was  there  anything  inconsistent  with  sound  principles  in  this?  Is 
there  anything  in  it  which  violates  the  principle  of  the  largest  liberty,  and 
the  purest  democracy,  of  which  we  hear  something  in  this  Report  ?” 

StojJ,  Mr.  Ketchum !  I  tell  you  there  is  not  one  word  in  that  whole  Re¬ 
port  against  such  a  state  of  things  as  that  you  represent  to  the  minds  of 
the  Senators  by  making  a  wrong  application.  What  is  represented  as  con¬ 
trary  to  the  principles  of  our  Constitution  was  the  monopoly — the  exclusive 
system  that  has  succeeded  the  former — and  Mr.  Ketchum  is  kind  enough 
to  make  an  anterior  reference  to  the  period  when  all  enjoyed  the  appro¬ 
priation  for  the  purposes  of  education.  I  stop  him  there,  and  say,  that  he 
makes  a  wrong  application.  He  ought  not  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  Sen¬ 
ators  or  the  community,  by  pretending  that  the  Secretary’s  Report  charges 
on  that  state  of  things  any  trenching  on  the  enjoyment  of  the  largest 
liberty. 

^Ir.  Ketchum  goes  on  :  “In  the  city  of  New  York,  as  I  shall  have  occa¬ 
sion  to  show  by  and  by — and  more  or  less  I  suppose  it  is  so  in  all  the  States 
of  Christendom — there  are  voluntary  associations — charitable  associations 
— associations  composed  of  men  incorporated  or  otherwise,  who  are  willing 
to  proffer  their  services  to  feed  the  hungry;  to  clothe  the  naked  ;  to  visit 
the  destitute,  and  to  see  to  the  api)lication  of  funds  set  apart  for  their  relief 
Such  men  are  always  to  be  found  in  large  cities ;  men  of  fortune,  men  of 
leisure,  men  of  benevolence,  who  are  willing  to  associate  together  for  be¬ 
nevolent  objects,  and  who  are  usually  made  the  almoners  of  the  charity  of 
others.” 

Now,  Mr.  Ketchum,  in  the  whole  of  this,  is  gliding  imperceptibly  to  the 
point  he  wishes  to  reach.  And  what  is  that  point  ?  It  is  to  fix  on  the  minds 
of  the  Senators  that  as  religious  societies  formerly  took  care  of  their  poor,  and 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEEOLL  HALL. 


205 


as  other  associations  take  care  of  other  objects  of  benevolence,  so  they  were  to 
look  upon  the  Public  School  Society  as  taking  care  of  education.  In  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  effect  this  conclusion,  his  reasoning  glides  imperceptibly  as  on  a  colored 
surface  which  is  black  at  one  extremity  and  white  at  the  other,  but  in  which 
the  various  shades  are  so  nicely  mingled  that  you  cannot  ascertain  the  point 
where  the  change  of  color  begins,  so  does  the  progress  of  his  sophistry  elude 
observation.  “  Charitable  Associations.”  Now,  I  will  examine  Mr.  Ketchum’s 
philosophy  here.  I  consider  that  there  is  here  what  may  be  called  a  rhetorical 
fiction.  He  personifies  the  city  of  New  York  and  calls  it  “  she  ” — then  he 
takes  her  and  places  her  one  side,  and  places  all  the  religious  societies,  and 
benevolent  societies — the  Public  School  Society  amongst  the  rest,  and  that  being 
done,  he  says,  the  city  of  New  York  made  them  her  “almoners.”  But  when 
we  take  these  societies  away  where  is  “  she  ”  ?  what  becomes  of  her  ?  (laughter 
and  cheers.)  This  is  what  I  call  a  rhetorical  fiction.  ]\Ir.  Ketchum  need  not 
pretend  to  say  that  the  city  of  New  York  made  “  almoners.”  They  were  self- 
created.  When  you  take  the  religious  societies,  each  having  its  charity  school, 
and  this  society,  which  we  must  not  call  irreligious,  although  it  has  always  de¬ 
feated  its  opponents  by  saying  that  they  profess  religion — these  constitute  the 
people  of  New  York,  and  they  received  the  money  set  apart  for  that  specific 
purpose,  and  in  their  sovereign  power  and  wisdom  they  applied  it  as  they 
thought  proper.  They  managed  it  with  perfect  harmony,  for  I  never  heard  of 
the  occurrence  of  a  dispute  when  each  section  of  the  community  assumed  the 
management  of  their  own  schools,  and  it  was  on  account  of  a  charge  against 
one  society  of  misappropriating  the  public  money  that  the  controversy  arose. 

Afterwards  referring  to  the  Legislature  by  which  that  state  of  things  was 
changed  to  the  present,  he  says : — “  Hence,  after  many  discussions  in  the  As¬ 
sembly  chamber,  discussions  at  which  all  the  members  were  invited  to  attend 
— and  almost  all  of  them  did  attend — for  we  had  generally  a  quorum^  although 
it  was  before  a  committee  night  after  night — the  Committee  of  the  Assembly  at 
length  made  a  report  favorable  to  the  prayer  of  the  memorial ;  but  suggesting 
in  that  very  report  whether  even  so  much  as  was  granted  in  the  proposition  re- 
feiTed  to  was  not  a  violation  of  sound  principle ;  whether,  in  fact,  religious 
societies  ought  to  participate  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  fund  at  all,  because,  by 
such  participation,  the  Jew  might  be  made  to  support  the  doctrine  of  the 
Christian,  and  vice  versa,  the  Christian  that  of  the  Jew,  the  Catholic  of  the 
Protestant,  the  Protestant  of  the  Catholic,  and  so  on.” 

What  a  splendid  discovery !  The  people  hitherto  living  in  perfect  harmony, 
all  enjoying  that  appropriation  of  public  money — not,  perhaps,  expending  it  in 
the  wisest  manner,  but  at  all  events  without  disturbance  or  dispute.  But  all 
at  once  it  is  discovered  that  because  they  are  religious  societies,  it  would  be  a 
violation  of  sound  principle  to  allow  them  the  public  money  I  And  why  ?  Be¬ 
cause  in  that  case  the  money  paid  by  a  Protestant  might  pass  to  the  support 
of  a  Catholic  school — or,  if  you  please,  to  the  school  of  a  Jew — and  that  involved 
a  violation  of  conscience.  I  confess,  however,  I  cannot  see  that,  nor  do  I  think 
anj'  reflecting  man  can  see  it.  But  what  is  the  fiict  respecting  the  turn  of  the 
legislation  in  relation  to  the  Public  School  Society,  called,  at  that  time,  the 
“Free  School  Society?”  Simply  that  because  at  that  Bethel  Baptist  Church 
money  had  been  improperly  appropriated,  occasion  was  taken  not  to  punish 
the  guilty  party,  if  there  was  guilt,  but  those  who  had  memorialized  against 
the  abuse  of  public  money,  and  to  disfranchise  every  man  professing  religion, 
because  the'members  of  one  particular  church  had  abused  their  trust !  And  it 
is  suspected  that  all  this  was  not  done  without  the  secret  instrumentality  of 
that  very  Free  School  Society  itself,  which  then,  as  at  the  present  day,  pro¬ 
fessed  to  have  no  religion  at  all.  So  that  in  this  very  Legislature — though  I 
know  that  another  view  of  it  is  perfectly  lawful — we  see  that  the  reasoning  ap¬ 
proved  by  Mr.  Ketchum,  would  go  to  brand  a  stigma  on  the  sacredness  of  re 


206 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ligion — it  would  lead  to  the  inference  that  because  the  adherents  of  one  religious 
sect  have  abused  their  trust  in  the  employment  of  the  public  money,  therefore, 
all  profession  of  religion  should  be  an  everlasting  disqualification !  But  I  pro¬ 
nounce  such  an  inference  unworthy  the  citizens  of  a  land  in  whose  Constitu¬ 
tion  Christianity  is  recognized.  And  I  ask,  where  was  the  usual  penetration 
of  Mr.  Ketchum  when  he  employed  such  reasoning  ?  By  the  laws  of  this  State, 
church  property  is  exempted  from  taxation,  and  I  am  surprised  that  gentle¬ 
men  of  such  tender  apprehensions  can  rest  quietly  at  night,  when  they  re¬ 
flect  that  possibly  Protestant  money  is  going  to  make  up  the  deficiency  in 
the  revenue  of  the  State,  caused  by  the  exemiJtion  from  taxation  granted 
to  Catholic  churches  !  But  I  see  no  harm  at  all  in  the  state  of  things  by 
which  money  is  thus  transferred.  All  the  churches  are  represented  by  all 
the  people,  and  it  matters  not  an  iota,  if  churches  are  exempted,  the  tax  is 
paid  by  the  members  in  another  form. 

So  with  the  Public  School  money.  Although  in  the  manipulation  of  the 
money,  it  might  happen  that  the  identical  dollar  paid  by  a  Protestant  might 
pass  into  the  treasury  of  a  Catholic  School,  the  Catholic  dollar  would  go 
back  to  replace  it  in  the  Protestant  School,  it  would  be  in  the  end,  all  the 
same,  for  the  question  is  not  at  all  about  the  identity  of  the  money.  If  the 
taxes  could  be  kept  separate,  and  the  money  paid  by  the  Protestant  go  into 
the  Protestant  box,  and  the  money  paid  by  the  Catholic  go  into  the  Catholic 
box,  sui-e  enough  they  would  get  their  own  money,  but  it  would  be  all  the 
same  if  no  such  care  had  been  taken.  Here  I  would  refer  to  the  case  of 
chaplains  in  our  prisons,  etc.,  not  one  of  whom  is  a  Catholic,  but  who  have 
often  received  the  contributions  ot  Catholics, — have  they  ever  complained 
that  that  was  a  violation  of  the  constitution?  Certainly  not,  and  that  prac¬ 
tical  view  of  the  matter  should  have  taught  the  gentleman  the  futilityiof  his 
reasoning— that  if  the  money  of  the  one  sect  went  into  the  hands  of  another 
it  was  all  the  same — it  was  the  money  of  peofle  received  from  them  in 
one  form,  and  returned  to  them  in  anothei’,  allowing  them  in  its  employment 
the  noble  and  giand  privilege — of  which  I  trust  they  will  not  allow  them¬ 
selves  to  be  deprived,  no  matter  how  they  exercise  it — of  obeying  the  dic¬ 
tates  of  their  own  free  consciences  (cheers). 

In  the  course  of  his  speech  the  gentleman  makes  a  grand  display  of  all  the 
sects  that  were  set  aside  by  the  society.  Then  he  asks  the  Senate  “will  this 
honorable  body  grant  to  Catliolics  what  was  denied  to  all  these  ?”  But 
there  is  a  difference  here,  and  what  is  it  ?  There  is  not  on  record  an  in¬ 
stance  of  a  complaint  on  the  part  of  any  of  these  sects  that  their  rights  of 
conscience  icere  invaded.  Episcopalians  never  made  any  such  complaint — 
nor  did  Presbyterians — nor  did  Methodists — nor  did  any  of  the  other  sects, 
— but  it  happened  that  they  had  charity  schools  attached  to  their  churches, 
and  they  tliouglit  giving  such  education  as  the  state  required,  they  were  en¬ 
titled  to  their  share  of  state  bounty.  But  very  different  was  the  case  of  the 
Catliolics.  And  now  suppose  tlie  circumstances  of  the  case  were  reversed, 
and  Oatholics  had  the  majority  on  Avhich  the  society  depends,  and  would  em¬ 
ploy  the  power  conferred  by  it,  in  forcing  on  the  whole  community  Catholic 
books — and  Catholic  versions  of  the  Bible — and  give  the  children  lessons 
about  the  burning  of  Servetus,  and  the  ignorance  of  a  whole  nation  in  sup¬ 
posing  the  machine  for  winnowing  corn,  to  be  an  impious  invention,  and  de¬ 
nouncing  these  employing  it  as  guilty  of  a  crime  against  God  who  supplies 
the  zephyrs  and  the  breeze — suppose  that  case,  and  that  the  aggtieved  mi¬ 
nority  complained  and  applied  for  redress,  I  trust  that  on  the  face  of  the 
earth  there  would  not  be  found  a  Common  Council  of  Catholics  who  would 
refuse  to  listen  to  so  just  a  prayer  ? 

IMr.  Ketchum  says  further  when  speaking  of  the  action  of  the  Common 
Council  on  this  application,  that  it  had  been  referred  to  a  law  committee,  and 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEEOLL  HALL. 


207 


he  quotes  the  decision  of  that  committee.  We,  knowing  the  manner  in 
wliich  our  former  applications  were  disposed  of,  need  not,  of  course  he  sur¬ 
prised  at  the  manner  in  which  this  Report  was  expressed.  To  our  last  ap¬ 
plication  made  in  the  spring  of  1830, — when  I  was  absent  from  this  country 
— to  the  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen,  the  usual  negative  was  given  ;  but 
tlien  it  is  to  be  observed  that  that  Board  was  surrounded  by  the  advocates 
of  the  Society,  and  these  things  which  we  have  stated,  and  which  they  have 
since  acknowledged,  were  denied  by  them — and  on  that  denial  was  grounded 
the  refusal  of  our  application.  The  advocates  of  the  society  denied  that 
there  were  any  passages  in  their  books  with  which  he  could  lind  fault- 
averred  that  they  contain  nothing  disrespectful  to  our  religion.  But  since 
then,  they  have  been  obliged  to  retract  that,  and  to  acknowledge  repeatedly 
that  in  making  these  assertions  they  were  not  sustained  by  trutli — that  there 
were  passages  in  those  books  reflecting  upon  our  faith — that  these  passages 
had  been  taught  to  the  children  for  years,  and  would  have  been  retained  till 
this  very  day,  had  it  not  been  for  our  detection  and  exposure.  But  it  was 
not  at  all  surprising  that  under  the  influence  of  a  society,  stretching  its  gi¬ 
gantic  branches  over  eveiy  quarter  of  the  city,  and  hearing  such  assertions 
from  its  advocates,  the  Board  sliould  deny  our  claim. — But  let  us  glance  at 
the  conclusion  which  Mr.  Ketchum  draws  from  such  denial — he  says 
“  That  conclusion  was  ratified  by  their  constituents ;  and  I  believe  J;hat 
every  one  of  the  religious  societies,  or  nearly  so,  excepting  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics,  acquiesced  in  that  decision.  But  that  society,  year  after  year,  has 
come  before  the  Common  Council  and  renewed  their  request  for  a  separate 
portion  of  the  school  fund.  With  the  best  feelings  for  the  applicants,  in  a 
spirit  of  kindness  ;  with  every  disposition  to  do  whatever  could  be  done  for 
them,  year  after  year,  and  without  respect  to  politics,  whether  the  one  party 
was  in  the  ascendant,  or  the  other  party  was  in  the  ascendant,  the  Common 
Council  have,  with  almost  entire  unanimity,  disallowed  that  request ;  and  I 
believe  that  never  in  either  Board,  since  the  division  of  that  body  into  two 
Boards,  has  there  been  but  one  dissenting  voice  r.aised  against  the  ratifica¬ 
tion  of  that  decision.  Row,  if  the  committee  please — who  have  complained? 
The  Roman  Catholics.” 

I  repeat  that  I  deny  the  philosophy  of  this  reasoning.  I  deny  that  in  any 
case  that  portion,  at  least,  of  the  community  that  has  petitioned  for  a  reform 
of  this  system,  ever  looked  to  the  Common  Council  as  their  representatives 
on  this  question.  And  another  argument  against  Mr.  Ketchum’s  position  is 
that  this  public  council  were  partizans  in  the  case  in  which  they  were  called 
to  deliver  judgment.  And  I  think  that  it  would  be  well  for  that  Public 
School  Society  and  the  Common  Council,  if  the  latter  by  their  election  to 
office  are  to  be  engrafted  into  the  former,  that  the  duty  of  judging  between 
them  and  the  community  were  delegated  to  disinterested  parties. 

Mr.  Ketchum  goes  on  to  say :  “  No  disrespect  was  intended  them.  The 
Common  Council,  and  every  person  engaged  in  the  discussion  of  the  ques¬ 
tion  on  behalf  of  the  Common  School  Society,  took  great  care  to  say,  ‘  we 
do  not  reject  you  because  you  are  Roman  Catholics and  as  evidence  of 
this  truth,  we  give  you  the  fact  that  wm  have  rejected  similar  applications 
from  powerful  protestants— but  we  reject  your  request  because  we  believe 
that  a  sound  general  principle  will  not  allow  us  to  grant  it.” 

So  there  was  always  a  precaution  observed.  Indeed  I  myself  remarked 
that  before  the  Common  Council.  They  uniformly — with  one  exception — 
said  that  they  did  not  oppose  us  because  we  were  Catholics.  But  Dr. 
Spring  Avith  great  magnanimity  and  candor  neglected  to  take  the  hint,  but 
declared  that  he  was  apprehensive  of  our  faith  gaining  ground.  He  would 
oppose  us  and  preserve  the  society  as  it  was,  even  though  the  rights  of  the 
Catholics  should  be  damaged ;  and  that  for  his  part  he  preferred  the 


208 


ARJHBISHOP  hughes. 


religion  of  Voltaire  to  that  of  Fenelon  !  The  sentiment  was  indeed  a  black 
one,  and  it  was  rendered  blacker  by  the  brightness  of  the  candour  with 
which  it  -was  uttered. 

Here  again  Mr.  Ketchum  states  what  is  incori’ect.  He  says  :  “We  have 
rejected  similar  applications  from  powerful  Protestants.” 

I  deny  that.  I  refer  liim  to  the  records  of  the  Common  Council,  and  I 
will  venture  to  affirm  that  he  wall  not  find  there  one  “  similar  application.” 
And  wdiy  ?  Simply  because  there  w'as  no  ground  for  any  such  application. 
For  although  one  denomination  of  Protestants  may  differ  from  another 
and  may  carry  their  attachments  to  their  respective  dogmas  to  great  length 
yet  there  is  one  common  ground  on  which  they  all,  so  far  as  I  know, 
wdthout  exception,  meet.  What  is  it  ?  That  the  Bible  alone,  as  understood 
by  each  individual,  is  their  rule  of  faith.  They  could  therefore  unite  on 
their  pxiblic  school  question  so  far  as  the  Bible  was  concerned.  But  then 
they  require  that  Catholic  children  whose  creed  never  admitted  that 
principle  should  be  taught  that  doctrine.  They  had  not  the  same  reason 
that  Ave  had  to  go  before  the  Common  Council.  We  felt  that  we  might  as 
wmll  at  once  give  iqi  to  them  our  children  and  allow  them  to  educate 
them  as  they  pleased,  as  send  them  to  their  schools.  I  deny  then  the  state¬ 
ment  “that  similar  applications  were  made.” 

He  proceeds ;  “  I  say  that  the  Corporation  has  been  desirous,  so  far  as 

that  body  possibly  could,  so  far  as  they  felt  themselves  at  liberty,  consist¬ 
ently  with  the  maintenance  of  a  sound  general  principle,  to  accommodate 
these  parties.  They  have  granted  a  privilege  out  of  this  fund  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  denomination,  which  has  not  been  granted  to  any  other. 
The  Sisters  of  Charity,  so  called,  under  direction  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  connected  with  it,  (I  believe  I  am  right — if  not  I  should  be 
happy  to  be  corrected,)  established  a  most  benevolent  institution  in  the 
city  of  New  A^ork,  called  the  Orphan’s  Asylum — the  Roman  Catholic 
Orphan’s  Asylum.  They  took  into  this  institution  jAoor  and  destitute 
orphans.  They  fed  and  clothed  them  most  meritoriously — and  they  thus 
relieved  the  city  of  New  A"ork  of  the  maintenance  of  many  Afho  wmuld 
otherwise,  irrobably,  have  been  a  charge  uj)on  it.  After  long  discussion, 
and  w’ith  some  hesitancy,  yet  overcome  by  the  desire  to  oblige,  and  aware 
of  the  limitation  arising  from  the  very  nature  of  that  institution,  the 
Corporation  did  permit  the  Catholic  Orphan  Asylum  to  receive  money  from 
this  fund  ;  and  during  the  last  year  it  received  some  $1,4G2  for  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  about  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  children — in  common  wdth  the 
institution  for  the  blind,  and  the  deaf  and  the  dumb,  and  those  other  bene¬ 
volent  and  Christian  institutions  whieh  are  altogether  of  a  Catholic  char¬ 
acter  in  the  most  comprehensive  acceptation  of  that  term — as  they  are 
under  no  sectarian  influence  or  government.” 

And  pray  what  sort  of  an  institution  is  the  Protestant  Orphan  Asylum  ? 
Is  religion  not  taught  there  ?  And  yet  Mr.  Ketchum  singles  out  the  Catho¬ 
lic  Orphan  Asylum  and  speaks  of  the  favor  conferred  on  it,  in  order  to  show 
the  liberality  of  the  Common  Council.  We  are,  indeed,  grateful  to  that 
body  for  having  placed  ours  on  the  same  footing  with  other  institutions  of 
a  kindred  character.  But  the  Common  Council  have  granted  money  to  the 
Protestant  Half-Orphan  Asylum,  and  denied  an  application  uiron  a  similar 
grant  to  the  Catholic.  How  can  Mr.  Ketchum  assert  that  a  “  privilege  ” 
has  been  granted  to  us  exclusively  ?  In  reference  to  our  last  application 
Mr.  Ketchum  proceeds : — 

“  The  subject,  I  repeat,  underwent  a  very  full  and  free  discussion  ;  and,  after  that 
had  terminated,  the  Board  of  Aldermen  gravely  considered  and  discussed  the  subject; 
and,  at  length,  after  some  delay,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  they  would  go  and  visit 
the  schools.  Some  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Public  Schools,  feeling  sensibly 


SPEECHES  IN  CARROLL  HALL. 


209 


alire  on  the  subject,  expressed  to  me  an  apprehension  that  this  was  a  mere  evasion,  and 
they  feared  that  the  question  had  now  become  mingled  with  politics.  But  I  said,  wait, 

fentlemen  ;  let  them  go  and  see  your  schools — it  is  a  natural  desire — they  ought  to  go. 

t  is  a  great  and  delicate  question,  and  they  ought  to  be  acquainted  with  it  in  all  its  de¬ 
tails.  They  went  and  visited  the  Public  Schools,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Schools,  and 
they  incorporated  the  result  of  their  deliberations  in  a  report  which  I  have  before  me, 
and  from  which  I  shall  quote  by  and  by.  It  is  drawn  up  with  great  ability,  and  the  de¬ 
cision  was,  with  but  one  dissenting  voice,  that  the  prayer  of  the  petition  should  be  re¬ 
jected  ;  and  it  was  rejected.” 

On  this  I  remark  in  reference  to  what  I  have,  I  believe,  already  referred 
to,  that  there  has  been  always  a  panacea  for  every  evil — the  aijpointment 
of  a  committee  to  visit  the  schools.  Why  this  is  one  of  the  easiest  things 
in  the  world  ?  A  little  training — a  little  arrangement — a  judicious  wink  to 
the  teachers — will  prepare  every  thing  so  that  it  will  be  very  hard  if  a 
pleasing  exhibition  could  not  be  got  up  in  any  one  of  those  schools  for  one 
hour,  on  ipiy  day  out  of  the  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  in  the  year.  But 
this  has  been  the  invariable  remedy — no  looking  at  the  wounds  which  the 
system  w'as  from  year  to  year,  and  from  day  to  day,  inflicting  on  less 
favored  portions  of  the  community — no  visit  to  the  back  streets  and  miser¬ 
able  lanes  of  this  city,  in  which  so  large  a  proportion  of  its  future  inhabit¬ 
ants  are  grovelling  in  exposure  to  vice  and  degradation.  Nothing  of  that 
was  thought  of.  But  the  schools  enriched  by  the  expenditure  of  more  than 
a  million  of  money  W'ere  inspected,  and  the  gratified  and  ajiproving  visiters 
returned  to  the  Common  Council  to  make  their  report  that  it  was  an  excel¬ 
lent  system,  perfect  in  its  details,  and  admirable  in  its  working,  and  it  w'as 
only  the  absurd  bigotry  and  extreme  ignorance  of  the  Catholics  that  pre¬ 
vented  them-  from  reaping  its  benefits ! 

When  he  compares  wfitli  all  this,  the  state  of  our  humble  schools.  Well, 
I  w’ill  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  Catholic  schools  were  in  the  best  order. 
But  here  I  remark  that  whilst  at  every  stage  and  step  of  the  progress  of 
this  question,  I  have  been  obliged  to  controvert  false  statements,  I  can 
challenge  them  to  point  to  a  single  instance  in  which  they  could  dispute 
the  truth  of  any  of  our  documents.  And  now  I  will  give  a  passing  notice 
to  that  visit  to  the  Catholic  schools.  Hear  this  statement.  This  committee 
say : — 

“  We  also  visited  three  of  the  schools  established  by  the  petitioners,  and  we  found 
them  as  represented,  lamentably  deficient  in  accommodations,  and  supplies  of  books 
and  teachers ;  the  rooms  were  excessively  crowded,  and  poorly  ventilated,  the  books 
much  worn,  as  W'ell  as  deficient  in  numbers,  and  the  teachers  not  sufficiently  numerous ; 
yet,  with  all  these  disadvantages,  though  not  able  to  compete  successfully  with  the 
Public  Schools,  they  exhibited  a  progress  which  was  truly  creditable ;  and  with  tne 
same  means  at  their  disposal,  they  would  doubttfess  soon  be  able,  under  suitable  direc¬ 
tion,  greatly  to  improve  their  condition.” 

Such  is  their  testimony. 

And  now  shall  I  pass  over  tliis  opportunity  of  making  a  comparison  ? 
Wiien  questioned  before  the  Senate,  the  Society  stated  that  they  could  not  get 
the  children  to  come,  and  here  are  our  schools  crowded  to  excess?  I  can 
show  you  in  a  room  not  much  larger  than  the  square  of  the  distance  between 
two  of  the  columns  supporting  the  gallery  of  this  building  in  which  we  are 
now  assembled,  upwards  of  two  hundred  children  crowded  together !  Yet 
the  Public  School  Society  are  obliged  to  pay  $1,000  a  year  of  public  money 
to  visitors  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  children  to  their  schools.  For  the 
fact  came  out  in  the  course  of  the  investigation  that  they  paid  that  sum 
yearly  to  tract  distributors  for  the  purpose  I  have  stated,  wdiilst  we  in  our 
poverty  could  not  find  room  or  books  or  teachers  for  the  multitudes  of  chil¬ 
dren  that  thronged  upon  us,  and  whom  this  exclusive  system  consigns  to 
degradation  and  ignorance  and  vice  unless  something  be  done  for  them  by 
others !  (Cheers.) 

14 


AKCnBISHOP  nUGHKS 


2ia 

Snell  is  the  testimony  of  that  very  committee.  And  yet  the  decision  ta 
wliich  they  came  is  quoted  by  Mr.  Ketchiirn  as  proof  that  “  a  great  princi¬ 
ple,” — of  which  no  definition  however  is  given  from  the  beginning  to  the 
eiui  of  his  speech, — prevented  tiiem  h-om  granting  our  petition.  Well,  I 
liave  called  yonr  attention  already  and  would  do  so  again  to  a  paint  that 
shows  as  clear  as  noon-day  that  this  denial  was  not  benevolent  towards  us,  nor 
in  accordance  with  equal-handed  justice.  They  had  opposed  us  as  a  sect — 
as  being  Catholics.  The  Secretary  of  State,  however — a  man  whose  integ¬ 
rity  of  character — legal  knowledge — and  profound  and  statesmanlike  views, 
have  elevated  him  to  the  highest  rank  in  the  community, — placed  the  ques¬ 
tion  on  entirely  diflhrent  grounds.  Mr.  Ketchum  in  the  last  sentence  of  his 
speech  before  the  Common  Council  declared  that  to  the  Public  School  So¬ 
ciety  the  discharge  of  their  duties  were  rather  a  burthen,  which  nothing  but 
the  extreme  benevolence  of  their  nature  had  prompted  them  to  assume,  and 
unless  they  were  saved  from  this  continued  agitation  they  would  throw  it  off. 
Well,  Mr.  Spencer  excludes  all  those  objectionahle  features  and  places  the 
question  on  a  broad  basis,  entirely  removed  from  all  sectarianism,  and  then 
wliere  are  those  benevolent  gentlemen  who  were  burthened  with  their 
charge  —  these  “humble  almoners”  of  the  public  bounty?  At  Albany, 
ready  for  a  new  fight !  Not  for  their  schools,  but  to  oppose  the  Secretary, 
for  Mr.  Spencer  only  wishes  to  make  education  like  the  air  we  breathe,  the 
land  we  live  in  ;  like  other  departments  of  human  industry  and  enterprise, 
free  1  He  would  not  hold  the  balance  so  as  to  afford  the  least  advantage  to 
any  party,  but  would  make  all  equal,  and  secure  to  them  the  enjoyment  of 
the  rights  established  by  the  constitution  of  the  country,  and  who  opposed 
him?  The  Public  School  Society.  Their  interests  were  not  invaded,  but 
they  could  not  admit  the  principle  that  we  were  to  receive  education  con¬ 
sistently  with  the  laws  of  the  State?  Why?  You  will  find  that  in  the 
course  of  Mr.  Ketchum's  speech,  he  says  the  Public  School  Society  could 
not  stand  one  day  if  education  were  made  free !  If  the  monopoly  which 
they  have  wielded  for  sixteen  years  should  be  touched  by  the  little  finger  of 
free  trade  they  would  perish.  “They  cannot  live  a  day.”  And,  gentlemen, 
if  they  cannot  live  one  day  on  the  principles  of  justice  and  freedom,  then  I 
say  that  half-a-day’s  existence  is  quite  enough  for  their  exclusive  system. 

We  have  seen  that  Mr.  Ketchum  has  introduced  the  committee  to  the 
schools,  and  now  he  comes  to  the  point.  “  Who,  then,  complain  of  the 
operations  of  this  system  ?  Our  fellow-citizens,  the  Koman  Catholics. 
Failing  to  get  from  the  hands  of  a  body  thus  constituted,  the  redress  for 
the  grievance  which  they  complained  of,  they  come  here  and  ask  it  of  you. 
I  say  they  come  here,  4>ecause  I  wdll  presently  show  you  from  their  memo¬ 
rials,  that  none  hut  they  come  here.” 

He  has  brought  it  round  to  that,  and  he  thinks  if  that  be  established  the 
same  prejudices — the  same  means  that  were  employed  to  defeat  us  in  New 
York  would  be  equally  efficacious  at  Albany.  He  says;  “  Failing  to  ac- 
comijlish  their  purpose  through  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  they  come  and  ask  it  here.  Failing  in  their  application  to  a  body  of 
representatives,  to  whom  they  have  applied  year  after  year,  and  who  repre¬ 
sent  a  population  in  which  is  intermingled  a  greater  mass  of  Roman  Catho¬ 
lic  voters  than  in  any  other  district  of  the  State  of  Nevr  York.”' 

See  the  advantage  he  takes  of  our  knowm  forbearance,  and  their  activity 
Because  we,  with  honorable  motives  that  should  have  been  better  appre¬ 
ciated,  abstain  from  making  this  a  political  one.  But  they  did  make  it 
such  a  question,  and  endeavored  to  deter  all  public  men  from  rendering 
Justice  to  the  oppressed  Catholics.  Now^  I  am  no  politician — I  belong  to 
no  ])arty — and  I  can  also,  perhaps,  speak  with  the  greater  freedom,  btmause 
we  have  highminded  friends  and  opponents  too,  amongst  both  political 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEROLL  HALL. 


211 


parties,  and  I  can,  perhaps,  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  Mr.  Ketclium’s 
allusion  to  “  voters.”  After  the  election  of  the  Governor,  the  papers  in  the 
views  of  this  society  referred  to  it  as  a  warning,  and  not  only  so,  but  indi¬ 
viduals  here  wrote  to  the  Governor  in  terms  of  reproach  against  the  Cath¬ 
olics  and  the  Irish  for  not  having  been  more  grateful  to  him.  They  taunted 
him  with  it.  And  how  is  that  to  be  answered  ?  I  should  be  sorry  that 
ever  the  Irish  should  be  ungrateful,  under  any  circumstances,  or  ever  forget 
a  friend;  and  especially  at  a  time  when  the  high  and  noble  principles  of 
justice  and  equality  laid  down  by  the  fathers  of  this  country  seem  to  be 
passing  into  rapid  oblivion,  if  a  public  man  stands  up  for  the  rights  of  even 
the  humblest  portion  of  the  community,  he  is  entitled  to  the  gratitude  and 
esteem  of  every  man  who  loves  his  country.  Not  that  the  Governor  con¬ 
ferred  on  us  any  peculiar  favor — I  disclaim  that — he  never  asked  any  thing 
for  us  but  what  we  conceived  our  right.  But  still  he  was  taunted  with 
references  to  the  ingratitude  of  the  Irish,  it  was  said  “  There  is  what  you 
got  by  advocating  the  cause  of  the  Irish.”  That  shows  whether  we  made 
our  question  a  political  one — and  I  am  glad,  in  one  sense,  that  the  Irish  did 
not  vary  from  the  principles  in  politics  to  which  they  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  attaching  themselves,  because  that  demonstrates  that  whatever 
may  be  the  ojhnion  of  calculating  politicians  respecting  the  Irish,  that 
portion  of  the  community  have  perhaps,  after  all  an  integrity  of  char¬ 
acter  and  23tirity  of  i)rincif)le  which  is  not  unfrequently  found  wanting 
amongst  more  elevated  classes  of  both  2)olitical  parties.  It  was  discovered 
then  that  the  Irish  would  not  abandon  their  princijdes  through  selfish 
motives.  But  now  let  me  ask  what  was  the  case  on  the  other  side  ?  Many 
of  them  turned  directly  round,  abandoning  all  their  old  ijolitical  associa¬ 
tions  and  friends,  in  order  to  let* Governor  Seward  know  how  much  he  had 
dared  when  he  declared  for  justice  and  equal  rights  to  all  (cheers). 

Such  was  the  case,  and  our  oj^ponents  cannot  deny  it.  Mr.  Ketchum 
then  is  unfortunate  in  his  allusions.  He  ought  not — if  he  had  what  I  shall 
not  now  mention — if  he  had  ju’esence  of  mind,  I  will  say,  he  ought  not  to 
have  alluded  to  that  matter  at  all,  because  it  has  brought  up  the  proofs  of 
what  was  done  by  his  own  clients,  while  our  vindication  is  triumidiantly 
effected.  We  have  thus  been  enabled  to  refute  all  the  charges  urged  against 
us  from  the  pulpits  and  religious  presses  at  the  disiiositinn  of  the  Society, 
that  Ave  made  a  political  question  of  it,  and  so  forth.  They  did ; — but  we 
did  not. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  dwelt  longer  on  some  topics  than  I  intended,  and  have 
made  less  progress  in  my  review  of  this  speech  than  I  anticqaatecl.  On  to¬ 
morrow  evening  I  will  jiroceed  with  my  remarks.  [Loud  and  long-con¬ 
tinued  applause.] 

[On  Friday  evening  the  Bishop  attended  according  to  his  intimation  at 
Carroll  Hall,  where,  notwithstanding  the  extreme  inclemency  of  the  wea 
ther,  a  very  considerable  audience  was  assembled.  It  was,  however,  deem 
ed  expedient  to  adjourn  the  meeting  till  the  folloAving  Monday.] 


MONDAY  EVENING,  June  21st. 

On  Monday  evening  an  immense  number  of  persons  assembled  to  hear 
the  conclusion  of  the  Bight  Rev.  Prelate’s  Sjieech.  The  aisles  and  galleries 
of  the  large  hall  in  which  the  audience  congregated,  were  densely  crowded, 
and  in  the  body  of  the  house  it  was  imjiossible  to  obtain  a  seat  for  a  con¬ 
siderable  time  before  the  meeting  was  organized.  Amongst  those  present 


212 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


we  noticed  the  Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  State,  and  many  distinguished 
Senators. 

Shortly  before  8  o’clock,  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  was  called  to  the  chaii 
amid  the  acclamations  of  the  meeting,  and  after  the  minutes  of  the  fonner 
meetings  had  been  read  by  B.  O’Connor,  Esq.,  the  Secretary,  the  Eight 
Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  rose  and  was  received  with  deafening  applause.  On 
its  subsidence  he  proceeded  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen, — I  have  had  occasion  already  to  observe 
that  the  question  which  we  are  now  discussing,  has  passed,  or  at  least  is 
now  passing  through  the  second  stage  of  its  progress.  In  the  first  stage 
we  had  to  apjoly  to  the  city  authorities,  and  we  were  obliged  by  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  case,  and  for  reasons  that  I  have  already  mentioned,  to  apply 
in  a  character  which  we  did  not  desire,  but  which  was  forced  upon  us  by 
circumstances,  over  which  we  had  no  control.  The  issue  of  that  applica¬ 
tion  is  known.  Then  we  laid  our  grievances  before  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  to  whom  the  question  had  been  referred, 
placed  it  upon  grounds,  altogether  different  from  those  on  which  it  had 
hitherto  been  considered.  Consequently  it  was  necessary  for  me  in  review¬ 
ing  Mr.  Ketchum’s  speech,  to  consider  it  under  two  heads.  And  hitherto 
my  remarks  on  it  have  applied  to  the  question  under  the  circumstances 
in  which  it  was,  previous  to  its  reference  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State. 
We  have  now  however  to  consider  it  on  the  ground  on  which  it  has  been 
placed,  in  the  able,  and  eloquent,  and  liberal  report  of  the  Honorable  Mr. 
Spencer.  And  I  cannot  avoid  observing  in  the  first  place,  that  taking  into 
account,  the  principles  of  equality  and  of  justice  that  pervade  that  docu¬ 
ment,  I  did  conceive  that  the  Public  School  Society  could  not  have  found 
any  objections  againstifc.  For  you  will  recollect  that  Mr.  Spencer  removes 
entirely  the  objections  urged  before  the  Common  Council  against  the 
recognition  of  our  claims.  These  objections  were  grounded  on  the  principle 
that  no  sect  or  religious  denomination  had  anything  to  do  with  the  money 
appropriated  for  the  purpose  of  education.  The  Secretary  has  completely 
obviated  that  objection.  He  has  regarded  the  petitioners  in  their  civil 
capacity.  He  has  exhibited  the  broad  and  general  grounds  on  which  every 
public  institution  in  this  country  is  conducted,  but  we  find  these  gentlemen, 
nevertheless,  as  zealous,  and  their  advocates  as  eloquent  against  Mr. 
Secretary  Spencer,  as  they  had  been  against  us.  There  can  be  no  charge 
now  that  a  recognition  of  our  claims  would  favor  sectarianism — a  union  of 
Church  and  State.  All  that  has  disappeared,  and  with  it  we  had  hoped 
would  have  disappeared  the  02)position  to  our  claims. 

I  will  now  follow  Mr.  Ketchum  in  his  arguments  before  the  Senate.  And 
first  of  all  I  would  direct  your  attention  to  the  number  of  times  in  which 
he  repeats  that  the  petitioners  are  Catholics.  He  twists  and  turns  that  in 
a  variety  of  ways,  in  order  to  convince  the  Senators  that  though  we  aiiplied 
in  the  character  of  citizens,  that  advantage  Avas  to  be  taken  away  irom  us, 
and  w^o  were  to  be  clothed  before  that  honorable  body  with  our  religious 
character  by  the  hand  of  Mr.  Ketchum  !  I  should  have  less  confidence  in 
the  stability  of  this  government — less  affection  for  its  constituted  author¬ 
ities,  if  I  thought  that  such  a  circumstance  could  militate  against  us  in  the 
minds  of  those  gentlemen,  who  have  been  elevated  by  the  suffrages  of  the 
people  to  the  guardianshiji  of  equal  rights.  (Cheers.)  I  conceive,  therefore, 
that  Mr.  Ketchum  has  mistaken  the  character  of  that  assembly — that  he 
has  exerted  himself  in  vain  to  fix  on  us  the  epithet  of  Roman  Catholics, 
when  we  appeared  in  the  character  of  citizens,  and  when  our  light  to 
worship)  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  our  conscience  had  been  already 


SPEECHES  IN  CAREOLL  HALL. 


213 


a  'priori  recognized  by  the  constitution  of  the  country.  A.nd  I  ask,  is  there 
any  crime  in  being  a  Roman  Catholic  ?  Is  there  any  advantage  to  be 
gained  in  bringing  that  against  us  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  history  of 
the  country  which  could  justify  the  hope  of  prejudicing  the  minds  of 
senators  by  such  an  allusion  !  No.  In  the  days  when  men  stood  side  by 
side  and  shoulder  to  shoulder,  and  blood  touched  blood  in  the  battle  strife, 
and  with  their  brave  swords  they  won  the  freedom  of  their  country,  was  it 
asked  who  is  a  Catholic  or  who  is  a  Protestant  ?  (Loud  Cheers.)  Ilad  Mr. 
Ketchum  forgotten  the  names  and  deeds  of  Kosciusko,  of  Pulaski,  or 
La  Fayette,  and  the  Catholic  Soldiers  of  Catholic  France  ?  Was  there  any¬ 
thing  said  against  that  religion  by  the  fathers  of  our  country  when  they 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  liberties  we  now  enjoy  ?  Was  thei’e  any  such 
charge  against  Charles  Carroll  when  he  came  and  signed  that  glorious 
declaration,  risking  more  than  all  the  other  signers  together  ?  No.  Nor 
have  we  any  cause  to  be  ashamed  of  our  religion,  and  God  forbid  we  ever 
should!  I  throw  back,  then,  that  maneuvre  of  Mr.  Ketchum,  and  I  tell 
him  this  is  not  the  country  whose  constitution  makes  apparent  to  the 
world,  that  to  be  a  Roman  Catholic  involves  a  deprivation  of  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  citizenship. 

Last  year  a  petition  was  presented  to  the  Senate,  signed  by  Catholics 
alone — this  year  the  petition  had  other  signatures.  True,  the  petitioners 
tvere  generally  Catholics,  but  others  signed  it  too,  and  I  hope  and  believe 
that  they  thought  they  asked  but  for  justice.  However,  Mi'.  Ketchum,  in 
order  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  takes  up  the  petition  presented  last  year, 
and  taunts  the  Secretary  as  if  he  were  guilty  of  artifice  in  making  it  appear 
that  the  members  of  other  religious  denominations  had  joined  in  oui 
petition.  He  says :  “  Probably,  (continued  Mr.  Ketchum,)  that  circum¬ 
stance  was  discovered  by  the  Secretary’s  sagacity,  between  1840  and  1841.” 

What  does  he  mean  by  that  allusion,  except  to  remind  the  Secretary  that 
it  was  by  prejudicing  the  public  mincl,  by  misrepresentations,  that  certain 
partizans  succeeded  in  diminishing  the  vote  for  his  Excellency  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  ?  If  Mr.  Ketchum  does  not  intend  that  by  this  delicate  hint,  I  should 
like  to  know  what  he  does  mean.  He  then  affects  to  take  up  the  objections  : 
“  One  of  the  complaints  is  that  the  people  are  not  represented  in  this  Public 
School  Society ;  that  here  is  an  agency  used  for  a  great  public  purpose 
which  the  people  do  not  directly  choose ;  and  they  complain  of  the  Public 
School  Society  being  a  close  corporation.” 

Certainly  all  these  are  grounds  of  complaint,  and  all  these  are  so  clearly 
set  forth  in  the  Report  of  the  Secretary,  that  you  have  but  to  read  that 
document  to  see  that  Mr.  Ketchum  cannot  shake  one  solitary  position  ot 
that  honorable  gentleman.  Is  not  the  Public  School  Society  a  close  cor¬ 
poration  ?  And  is  not  Mr.  Secretary  Spencer’s  Report  calculated  to  place 
it  on  the  same  basis  on  which  all  our  free  public  institutions  are  founded  ? 
Is  the  Secretary  not  a  Reformer,  then,  in  reference  to  that  Society  ?  He 
does  here  preeisely  what  Lord  John  Russell  attempts  to  do  in  England, 
when  he  endeavors  to  break  down  the  monopoly  of  the  corn  laws  and  to 
make  bread  cheap.  Mr.  SiJencer  wishes  to  break  down  the  monopoly  of 
education,  and  to  make  voting  and  education,  the  bread  of  knowledge, 
cheap.  That  is  to  say,  that  the  same  people  who  are  supposed  to  be  capa¬ 
ble  of  choosing  a  Sheriff,  or  a  Governor,  or  a  President,  without  paying  for 
the  privilege,  should  also  have  the  right  of  choosing  the  teachers  of  their 
children,  without  paying  $10  for  it.  (Cheers.)  Mr.  Ketchum  passes  over 
that  very  lightly.  That  is  a  point  not  to  be  seriously  dwelt  upon,  and  he 
glides  into  the  old  charge  pre^oared  before  the  Common  Council,  and  takes 
up  the  old  objections,  although  not  one  of  them  was  presented  in  the  peti¬ 
tion  before  the  Senate.  Keeping  always  before  the  mind  of  the  Senators 


214 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


that  we  are  Catholics,  he  affects  to  take  up  these  objections,  and  says : 
“  Now,  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  the  fact  now  to  be 
stated.  There  is  no  complaint  in  these  memorials,  nor  will  you  hear  any 
from  any  source,  that  the  Public  School  Society  does  not  furnish  to  all  the 
children  who  attend  their  schools  a  good  literary  education.” 

Let  me  caution  Mr.  Ketchum  not  to  be  so  fast,  and  I  will  give  him  my 
reasons.  Prom  the  manner  in  which  the  examinations  are  conducted,  it  is 
the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  to  have  all  ready  pre2)ared  for  the  day  of 
visitation ;  when  the  examiners  i)resent  themselves,  pet  classes  are  arranged, 
and  in  them  pet ptu^nls^  who  will  irerform  their  jjart  admirably  well.  It  is 
easy  to  have  all  this  array,  and  so  it  is  to  be  regarded  rather  as  an  exhibi¬ 
tion  than  an  examination.  But,  if  they  desire  their  examinations  to  create 
universal  confidence,  let  them  have  them  as  they  are  conducted  in  Eurojjean 
Universities,  where  the  jDupils  stand  forward,  and  any  person  who  chooses 
examines  them,  when  not  the  choice  and  prepared  i3Uj)ils  are  taken,  but  the 
subjects  of  examination  are  selected  indiscriminately  from  the  classes.  Let 
such  a  method  be  adojDted  here,  and  I  will  venture  to  say  that  Mr.  Ketchum 
will  not  have  anything  to  boast  of  over  other  schools.  (Cheers.)  I  do  not, 
however,  blame  the  visitors  for  not  finding  fault  with  the  external  manage¬ 
ment  of  these  schools.  I  think  it  excellent ;  and  the  best  loroof  of  the  sin¬ 
cerity  of  that  ojjinion  was  afforded  in  our  willingness  to  adojDt,  and  jfface 
the  suj)erintendence  of  our  schools  in  the  hands  of  these  very  gentlemen*. 
But  Mr.  Ketchum  goes  on : 

“  The  Roman  Catholics  complain,  in  the  first  place,  that  they  cannot  conscientiously 
send  their  children  to  the  Public  Schools,  because  we  do  not  a;ive  religious  instruction 
in  a  definite  form,  and  of  a  decided  and  definite  character.  They  complain,  in  the  sec¬ 
ond  place,  that  the  school  books  in  common  use  in  the  Society,  contain  passages  reflect¬ 
ing  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  And  they  complain,  in  the  third  place,  that  we 
use  the  Bible  without  note  or  comment — that  the  school  is  opened  in  the  morning  by 
calling  the  children  to  order  and  reading  a  chapter  in  the  Bible, — our  common  version. 
These  are  the  three  grounds  on  which  they  base  their  conscientious  scruples.” 

Now  it  is  a  fact  that  we  do  not  com^ffain  of  any  one  of  these  things  in  our 
petition  to  the  Senate.  One  of  these  complaints  was  expressed  in  tlie  peti¬ 
tion  to  the  Common  Council,  and  I  have  already  explained  the  reasons  of 
that  presentation.  But  in  the  petition  to  the  Senate,  we  said  in  general 
terms,  that  the  conscientious  scruples  of  a  large  portion  of  our  fellow-citizens 
were  violated  by  the  system  pursued  in  these  schools.  I  will,  however, 
take  up  these  objections  in  order. 

Mr.  Ketchum  says  that  we  complain,  in  the  first  place,  that  we  cannot 
send  our  children  to  the  schools  of  the  Public  School  Society  ‘‘because 
religion  is  not  there  taught  of  a  decided  and  definite  character.”  Mr.  Ketchum 
certainly  has  not  stated  that  objection  correctly,  for  I  defy  him  to  find  such 
words  in  our  i)etition.  We  complained  in  general  against  these  schools,  that 
by  divorcing  religion  and  literature,  they  endangered  the  best  interests  of 
children  who  wmre  to  grow  up  to  be  men,  and  who,  to  be  useful  members  of 
the  community,  should  have  their  minds  imbued  with  correct  principles,  and 
could  not  be  so  wdthout  being  made  acquainted  with  some  religious  ]n-inci- 
ples.  But  we  never  complained  that  tliey  did  not  give  “  definite  religious 
instruction.”  Far  from  it,  and  when  Mr.  Ketchum  asserted  that  we  did,  I 
am  sorry  to  say  that  he  asserted  what  lie  must  or  might  have  known  to  be 
untrue.  And  how  do  I  prove  it?  In  our  propositions  to  the  Committee  of 
the  Common  Council,  when  they  had  gone  through  with  their  ceremony  of 
visiting  the  schools,  and  the  Society  had  offered  their  propositions,  the  very 
last  .article  of  our  proposal  was  in  these  words: — But  nothing  of  their  ‘1.  e. 
Catholic)  dogmas^  nothing  against  the  creed  of  any  other  religious  denomina~ 
tion  shall  he  introduced^  Mr.  Ketchum  saw  that,  and  I  ask  him,  how  could 


SPEECHES  IX  CARROLL  HALL. 


215 


he  undiirtake  to  make  an  argument  by  substituting  language  entirely  differ¬ 
ent  from  ours,  and  presenting  it  as  our  objection?  How  could  be  say  that 
we  found  fault  with  the  Public  School  Society  for  not  teacliing  religion  in  a 
“definite  form,”  when  they  always  disclaimed  the'  right  to  teach  it  at  all, 
and  considered  it  a  crime  for  any  denomination  to  ask  for  it?  This  is  what 
I  call  substitution — invention- — a  course  unworthy  of  Mr.  Ketchum, — of  his 
profession,  and  of  that  society  of  which  he  was  the  organ. 

1  am  well  aware  that  to  a  hasty  reader  Mr.  Ketchum’s  speech  will  appear 
very  logical  indeed.  But  I  have  at  the  same  time  to  observe,  that  while  he 
reasons  logically,  by  drawing  correct  inferences  from  his  premises,  he 
has  taken  care  previously  to  change  the  premises,  and  instead  of  taking 
our  principle  as  submitted  by  us,  he  gradually  shifts  it — preserving,  how¬ 
ever,  enough  to  deceive  a  cursory  reader — until  he  substitutes  one  entirely 
different,  from  which  he  reasons  very  logically,  of  course.  Let  us  sup¬ 
pose  Mr.  Ketchum  a  professor  of  law  in  some  university— for  I  have  no 
doubt  he  could  fill  such  a  chair,  and  adorn  it  too,  if  he  would — and  im¬ 
agine  him  addressing  a  class  of  students.  He  says,  “Gentlemen,  one  of  the 
most  important  things  in  our  profession  is  to  know  how  to  conduct  an  argu¬ 
ment,  which  you  must  always  do  with  logical  precision.  And  to  effect  this 
you  are  to  follow  this  excellent  rule  : — if  your  facts  sustain  your  conclusions, 
well ;  if  not,  you  must  find  other  facts  that  will !  ”  (Laughter  and  loud 
cheers.)  “  The  principle  of  this  rule  I  call  the  principle  of  substitution,  and 
an  admirable  principle  it  is,  but  you  must  be  cautious  how  you  use  it,  espe¬ 
cially  before  a  judge  and  jury.  But  if  it  is  before  a  public,  which  reads  fast 
— for  there  is  a  great  deal  to  be  read — you  will  find  it  work  very  well. 
Recollect  then,  gentlemen,  this  great  principle —  ‘substitute  ’  in  your  reason¬ 
ing!”  (Loud  laughter.) 

In  such  a  way  we  might  imagine  Mr.  Ketchum  addressing  his  students 
And  you  will  find  that  few  reason  illogically.  Even  the  inmates  of  a  Lunatic 
Asylum  reason  very  logically.  One  of  them  perhaps,  imagines  himself  a 
clock,  he  says,  “stand  off,  don’t  shake  me — I  am  obliged  to  keep  time.” 
That  is  logical  reasoning.  The  only  mistake  is  that  he  “substitutes”  a  clock 
for  a  living  creature — and  reasoning  from  this  substitution  he  draws  the  con¬ 
clusions  admirably.  So  it  is  with  Mr.  Ketchum.  (Laughter  and  cheers.) 

We  did  not,  I  tell  Mr.  Ketchum,  ask  the  Public  School  Society  to  teach 
religion  in  any  definite  form.  We  never  complained  of  their  not  teaching 
it.  We  never  did  ask  such  an  unreasonable  thing  from  men  who  made  it  a 
crime  for  religious  societies  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with  the  public  money. 

He  then  states  another  objection  ; — “  that  the  books  used  in  the  schools 
contain  passages  reflecting  on  the  Catholic  Church.”  That  is  true;  and  he 
says  in  the  third  place  that  we  object  that  “  the  Protestant  version  of  the 
Bible  is  used,  that  the  schools  are  opened  by  calling  the  children  to  order, 
and  reading  a  passage  from  that  Bible.”  Not  a  word  of  that  in  our  petition. 
That  is  “  substitution”  again — removing  the  objections  presented  by  us,  and 
substituting  others,  which  might,  as  he  supposed,  lead  to  the  denial  of  our 
claims  on  the  ground  that  we  object  unreasonably. 

Mr.  Ketchum  takes  up  the  objection,  and  in  order  to  show  how  unreason¬ 
able  that  was,  he  submits  the  proposition  of  the  Public  School  Society — 
passing  altogether  over  ours,  which  common  justice  required  should  have 
also  been  presented,  as  it  would  have  discovered  on  our  part  a  similar  dispo¬ 
sition,  and  have  entirely  undeceived  the  Senators  as  to  any  alleged  claim  to 
have  religion  taught  in  a  definite  form. 

There  was  no  official  declaration  guarding  against  the  possibility  that,  next 
year,  another  Board  might  not  alter  all  tliese  books  to  a  worse  state  than 
ever — and  consequently  their  offer  to  expunge  their  books  was  altogether 
nugatory.  Mr.  Ketchum  says,  however,  “This  portion  of  the  report,  as 


216 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


will  be  seen,  lias  reference  to  these  offensive  passages.  New,  every  borly 
will  say,  that  it  is  a  fair  offer — w'e  will  strike  them  out.  But,  gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  I  submit  wffiether  here,  in  this  country,  we  must  not  in  mat¬ 
ters  of  conflicting  opinions,  give  and  take.”  Well,  I  do  not  find  the  Public 
Siihool  Society,  although  very  good  at  “  at  all  disposed  to 

any  thing.  (Laughter.) 

“  I  have  no  doubt  that  I  can  find  something  in  any  public  school  book,  of  much 
length,  and  containing  much  variety  of  matter,  refiecting  upon  the  Methodists — upon 
the  heated  zeal,  probably  of  John  Wesley  and  his  followers — reflecting  upon  the  Epis¬ 
copalians,  the  Baptists,  and  Presbyterians.  Occasional  sentences  will  find  their  way 
into  public  discourses,  which,  if  viewed  critically,  and  regarded  in  a  captious  spirit, 
rather  reflect  upon  the  doctrines  of  all  those  churches.” 

In  this  way  he  gets  over  these  passages  most  insulting  to  us  and  our  religion, 
which  I  pointed  out  to  those  gentlemen  after  their  having  inculcated  them 
in  the  minds  of  the  children  for  sixteen  years  past!  We  have  to  add, 
however,  that  in  examining  these  books,  we  found  no  passages  reflecting  on 
those  denominations. 

Now  I  will  call  your  attention  to  Mr.  Ketch  urn’s  views  respecting  conscience 
and  conscientious  scruples.  TFi?  supposed  that  w'hen  a  man  could  not  do  a 
thing  in  conscience,  the  reason  was  that  he  thought  by  doing  it  he  would 
offend  God.  This  is  what  we  supposed  to  he  a  conscientious  difficulty ;  and 
therefore  it  was  that  we  did  not  object — as  he  says,  and  as  I  shall  have  occa¬ 
sion  to  treat  of  presently — to  the  Protestants  reading  their  version  of  the 
Bible;  because  believing  it  right,  they  could  use  it  with  a  good  conscience. 
But  we  Catholics  did  not  approve  of  the  version,  many  other  denominations 
do  not  approve  of  it — the  Baptists  and  Unitarians  for  instance, — and  one 
objection  wms  that  Mr.  Ketchurn  and  the  Public  School  Society  would  force 
on  us  the  reading  of  that  version  against  w'hich  we  had  conscientious  objec¬ 
tions.  We  believe  that  to  yield  to  that,  would  damage  the  faith  which  we 
hold  to  be  most  pleasing  to  God.  Suppose  us  to  be  in  error,  if  you  please ; 
but  certainly  the  Public  School  Society  have  no  right  to  rule  tliat  wm  are. 
They  are  not  infallible,  and  consequently  should  recognize  our  right  of  con¬ 
science,  as  we  recognize  theirs. 

But  Mr.  Ketchurn  has  battled  bravely  against  these  principles,  and  think¬ 
ing  it  would  be  better  for  us  to  agree  to  offend  God,  and  coincide  with 
the  Public  School  Society,  wishes  to  beat  down  these  scruples.  And  now 
would  you  have  his  idea  of  a  conscientious  scruple?  He  institutes  a  com¬ 
parison  in  order  to  show  how  trifling  such  things  are,  and  he  says : — 

“  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  passages  from  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Webster, 
which  have  found  their  way  into  school  books ;  and  a  democrat  may  say,  I  cannot  go 
Mr.  Webster;  m3-  children  shall  not  be  taught  to  admire  him.  And  thus,  if  we  are 
captious,  we  can  find  conscientious  scruples  enough.” 

So  that  Mr.  Webster’s  writings  are  placed,  as  it  were,  on  a  parallel  with 
the  w-ord  of  God  himself; — and  a  difficulty  of  which  he  is  the  subject  is 
spoken  of  in  the  same  way  as  if  it  were  a  difficulty  in  reference  to  God  ! 
And  what  is  Mr.  Ketchnm’s  conclusion  ?  That  whilst  he  would  trample  tm 
our  conscientious  scruples  about  the  Deity,  to  bow  with  great  deference  to 
the  scruples  about  Mr.  Webster,  and  of  this  he  goes  on : — 

“However,  if  it  is  iona  fide  a  conscientions  scruple,  there  is  the  end  of  it ;  we  cannot 
reason  with  it.  But,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Common  Council,  and  as  I  think  must  be 
the  case  in  the  judgment  of  every  man,  the  difliculty  is  got  over  by  the  proposition 
which  has  been  made.” 

Well  now  just  let  him  extend  a  little  of  that  indulgence  to  us  in  the  case 
in  which  our  account  to  our  Creator  and  eternal  Judge  is  involved.  But  not 
so.  He  next  says  -.“The  next  complaint  is,  that  we  do  not  give  religious  edu- 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEEOLL  HALL. 


217 


cfifion  enough.”  Where  did  Mr.  Ketchum  find  that?  Tlut  is  “substitution” 
again.  He  has  not  found  that  in  any  thing  from  us.  He  proceeds  : 

“  The  memorials,  all  of  which  are  public — and  the  speeches  and  documents  which 
have  been  employed,  and  which,  if  necessary,  can  be  furnished  to  the  committee — all 
go  conclusively  to  demonstrate  that,  in  the  judgment  of  those  who  spoke  for  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  we  ought  to  teach  religion  in  our  public  schools — not  generally — not 
vaguely — not  the  general  truths  of  religion;  but  that  specific  religious  instruction 
must  be  given.  Now,  I  hardly  suppose  that  this  deficiency  can  be  made  the  subject  of 
conscientious  objection.” 

But  that  is  a  false  issue.  On  none  of  these  points  has  he  stated  our  objec¬ 
tion.  We  never  objected,  as  far  as  Catholic  children  were  concerned,  that  they 
did  not  teach  religion.  We  complained  of  a  system  from  which  religion  was 
(according  to  them)  excluded  by  law.  But  that  on  the  contrary  they  did 
attempt,  surreptitiously,  to  introduce  such  teaching,  in  a  form  that  we  did  not 
recognize.  What  does  he  say  then  ? 

“  The  third  and  last  complaint  is,  that  our  Catholic  brethren  can  not  consent  to  have 
this  Bible  read  in  the  hearing  of  their  children.  Now,  on  every  one  of  these  points, 
the  Trustees  have  been  disposed  to  go  as  far  as  they  possibly  could  in  the  way  of 
accommodation  ;  but  they  never  yet  consented  to  give  up  the  use  of  the  Bible  to  the 
extent  to  which  it  is  used  in  the  schools.  I  say  the  Trustees  have  never  yet  consented 
to  this  surrender.  But  if  they  can  have  good  authority  for  doing  it,  they  will  do  it. 
If  this  Legislature,  by  its  own  act,  will  direct  that  the  Bible  shall  be  excluded,  I  will 
guarantee  that  it  shall  be  excluded.” 

Now  perhaps,  one  of  the  rarest  talents  of  an  orator,  is  that  which  enables 
him  to  accommodate  his  discourse  to  the  character  of  the  audience  whom  he 
addresses.  But  like  all  rare  talents,  it  should  be  exercised  with  discretion. 
That  the  learned  gentleman  possesses  it,  however,  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that 
the  very  declarations  made  by  him  before  the  Senate  are  contradicted  by  his 
statements  before  the  Common  Council,  and  vice  versa.  Before  the  Common 
Council,  in  the  presence  of  a  number  of  the  clergy,  he  eloquently  denounced 
the  exclusion  of  the  Bible  from  the  schools.  If  a  compromise  depended  on 
this,  he  must  say  “No  compromise.”  Before  the  Senate,  however,  he  is  all 
obsequeousness,  “  Gentlemen,  if  you  give  us  authority  to  exclude  the  Bible,  I 
guarantee  that  it  shall  be  so !” 

I  recollect  the  beautiful  period  with  which  the  gentleman  wound  up  his  sen¬ 
timent  before  the  Common  Council,  I  remember  him  saying  that  “  it  would  be 
hard  to  part  with  that  translated  Bible — hard  indeed,  for  it  had  been  the  con¬ 
solation  of  many  in  death — the  spring  of  hope  in  life— and  wherever  it  had  gone 
there  was  liberty  and  there  was  freedom,  and  where  it  had  not  gone  there  was 
darkness  and  there  was  despotism.”  But  I  must  apologize  for  attempting  to  re¬ 
peat,  as  I  spoil  the  poetry  of  his  eloquent  language.  At  the  time,  however,  I 
thought  what  a  beautiful  piece  of  declamation  for  a  Bible  Society  Meeting ;  for, 
on  such  occasions,  owing  to  the  enthusiasm — the  sincere  enthusiasm — of  the 
auditors,  and  the  oftentimes  artificial  enthusiasm  of  the  speakers,  alt  history, 
philosophy,  and  common  sense,  occasionally,  are  rendered  quite  superfluous. 
The  most  beautiful  phrases,  resting  on  no  basis  but  fancy,  may  be  strung  to¬ 
gether,  and  will  produce  the  deepest  impression.  But  I  doubt  much  when  we 
come  to  examine  the  sober  reality  of  the  matter  whether  the  poetical  beauties  of 
Mr.  Ketchum’s  fiction  will  not  be  seen  vanishing  into  thin  air.  I  doubt  much, 
indeed,  whether  the  liberty,  whose  origin  and  progress  history  has  recorded, 
will  be  found  to  have  sprung  from  “that  translated  Bible,”  in  any  sense,  and 
especially  in  the  sense  of  Mr.  Ketchum.  I,  of  course,  yield  to  no  man  in  pro¬ 
found  veneration  for  the  book  of  God,  but  there  is  a  point  of  exaggeration  which 
does  no  credit,  but  injury  to  that  Holy  Book. 

Let  us  look  at  these  translations  of  the  Bible.  The  first  was  Tyndall’s,  then 
Coverdale’s,  and  then  the  Bishop’s  Bible.  These  remained  till  the  time  of 
James  the  First,  and  during  all  that  time — a  period  of  about  a  century — if 


218 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ever  (here  was  a  period  of  degrading  and  slavish  submission  to  tyiannical 
power  in  England,  it  was  then  beyond  all  comparison.  At  the  close  of  this 
period  a  new  translation  was  made  and  dedicated  to  the  king.  It  was  dis¬ 
covered  that  the  “  only  rule  of  Faith  and  Practice  ”  during  all  this  time  was 
full  of  errors  and  corruption.  Every  one  knows  that  James  was  one  of  the 
poorest  scions  of  the  poor  race  from  whom  he  was  descended.  Yet  in  their 
dedication,  the  translators  appointed  to  amend  the  rule  of  faith  by  a  new  trans¬ 
lation,  call  him  the  “  Sun  in  his  strength,”  and  that  from  his  many  and  extra- 
ordinaiy  graces,  he  might  be  called  the  “  wonder  of  the  world  !  ”  Now, 
during  the  succeeding  sixty  or  eighty  years  what  were  the  doctrines  of  liberty 
in  England  ?  It  was  then  that  the  schoolmen  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  taught 
from  “that  translated  Bible”  the  dogma  of  “ non-resistance  to  the  royal 
AUTHORITY  ” — that  “  PASSIVE  OBEDIENCE  ”  was  the  duty  of  subjects — that  no 
crime  nor  possible  tyranny  of  the  prince  could  authorize  a  subject  to  rebel. 
How  could  Mr.  Ketchum  forget  all  that  ? 

Let  us  examine  the  facts  of  the  case  and  ascertain  how  coiTect  Mr.  Ketchum 
was  when  he  said  that  liberty  had  always  followed  the  progress  of  that  trans¬ 
lated  Bible.  You  will  find  that  from  the  period  of  the  Reformation  down  to 
the  Revolution,  England  was  sunk  to  the  lowest  degree  of  slavish  submission 
to  tyrannical  authority.  I’he  spirit  of  old  English  freedom  had  disappeared  at 
the  Reformation,  and  it  was  only  at  the  Revolution  that,  like  a  ship  recovering 
its  equilibrium  after  having  been  long  capsized  by  the  storm,  that  old  spirit 
righted  itself  again.  But  do  I  speak  poetry  like  ]\Ir.  Ketchum  ?  let  me  appeal 
to  facts  (loud  cheers.) 

We  find  the  fundamental  principles  of  liberty  as  well  understood  by  our 
Catholic  ancestors,  centuries  before  the  Reformation,  as  they  are  at  the 
present  day.  They  well  understood  the  principle,  that  all  civil  authority 
is  derived  from  the  people,  and  that  those  elected  to  exercise  it,  are  res¬ 
ponsible  to  those  fi'om  whom  they  derive  their  power. 

“  By  one  of  the  laws  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  confirmed  by  the  Conqueror,  the  duties 
of  the  king  are  defined;  and  it  is  provided  that,  unless  he  should  properly  discharge 
them,  he  should  not  even  be  allowed  the  name  of  king  as  a  title  of  courtesy,  and  this 
on  the  authority  of  a  pope.  The  coronation  of  Henry  I.  was  based  on  as  regular  a  con¬ 
tract  as  ever  yet  took  place  in  market-overt.  By  the  coronation  oaths  of  the  several 
inonarchs  between  him  and  John  a  similar  contract  was  implied.  By  Magna  Charta, 
and  its  articles  for  keeping  the  peace  between  the  king  and  the  kingdom,  this  implied 
contract  was  reduced  to  writing,  and  ‘  signed,  sealed,  and  delivered  by  the  parties 
thereto.’  In  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  Bracton,  one  of  his  judges,  tells  us,  that  since  the 
king  ‘  is  God’s  minister  and  deputy,  he  can  do  nothing  else  on  earth,  but  that  only 

which  he  can  do  of  right . Therefore,  while  he -does  justice  he  is  the  deputy 

of  the  Eternal  King;  but  the  minister  of  the  devil  when  he  turns  to  injustice.  For  he 
is  called  king  from  governing  well,  and  not  from  reigning ;  because  he  is  king  while  he 
reigns  well,  but  a  tyrant  when  he  violently  oppresses  the  people  entrusted  to  him.  . 

.  .  .  Let  the  king,  therefore,  allow  to  the  law  what  the  law  allows  to  him — dominion 

and  power — for  he  is  not  a  king  with  whom  his  will,  and  not  the  law,  rules.” — Dublin 
Review. 

There  was  the  language  of  a  judge  in  the  times  before  either  the  Refor¬ 
mation  or  James’  translation  of  the  Bible  were  dreamed  ofl  I  pass  to  ano¬ 
ther  historical  event — the  crowning  of  John,  on  which  occasion  Hubert, 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  fearing  that  the  monarch,  from  supposing 
that  his  royal  blood  alone  entitled  him  to  receive  the  kingly  office,  should 
throw  the  kingdom  into  confusion,  reminded  him  that  no  one  had  such  a 
right  to  succeed  another  in  the  government  unless  chosen  by  the  people. 

“  That  no  one  had  a  right  by  any  precedent  reason  to  succeed  another  in  the  sover¬ 
eignty,  unless  he  were  unanimously  cliosen  by  the  entire  kingdom,  and  pre-elected 
according  to  the  eminency  of  his  morals,  after  the  example  of  tSaul,  the  first  anointed 
king  whom  God  had  set  over  his  people,  though  not  a  king’s  son,  or  sprung  of  a  royal 
rate,  that  thus  he  who  excelled  all  in  ability,  should  preside  over  all  with  power  and 
uuihority.  But  if  any  of  a  deceased  king’s  family  excelled  the  rest  of  the  nation,  to  his 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEROLL  HALL. 


219 


flection  they  should  more  readily  assent.  For  these  reasons  they  had  chosen  Count 
John,  the  brother  of  their  deceased  king,  on  account  as  well  of  his  merits  as  of  his 
royal  blood.  To  this  declaration  John  and  the  Assembly  assented.” 

I  wonder  whether  an  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  now,  with  this  translat¬ 
ed  Bible  in  his  hand,  would  dare  to  utter  such  language  in  the  presenee  of 
the  monarch  when  he  was  about  to  officiate  at  a  coronation  !  Let  us  now 
turn  to  what  occurred  after  this  translation  of  the  Bible.  At  the  execution 
of  the  Earl  of  Monmouth,  there  were  a  number  of  Protestant  divines  who 
exhorted  him  to  die  like  a  “  good  Christian,”  and  the  great  i)oint  on  which 
they  insisted  was  that  the  subject  was  bound  to  obey  the  prince  with 
“  passive  obedience.”  But  the  noble  Earl,  in  whose  breast  there  still  burn¬ 
ed  something  of  the  principles  of  the  olden  times  of  England,  w'ould  not 
agree  to  that  dogma,  and  then  the  divines  under  the  influence  of  this  trans¬ 
lated  Bible  refused  to  pray  for  him.  Their  last  words  were,  “  Then,  my 
lord,  we  can  only  recommend  you  to  the  mercy  of  God,  but  we  cannot  pray 
with  that  cheerfulness  and  encouragement  as  we  should  if  you  had  made 
a  particular  acknowdedgmeut.” 

The  same  doctrine  was  prevalent  at  the  time  of  Tillotson,  and  he  speaks 
of  it  not  only  as  his  own  ojjinion,  but  as  that  of  those  for  whom  Mr.  Ketch- 
urn  claims  the  honor  of  being  considered  the  apostles  of  English  liberty !  I 
quote  from  the  Dublin  Review : 

“  Among  those  who  importuned  the  unfortunate  Lord  Russell  to  make  a  similar  ac¬ 
knowledgment  was  Tillotston,  who,  by  letter,  told  him  that  this  doctrine  of  non-resist¬ 
ance  ‘  was  the  declared  doctrine  of  all  Protestant  Churches,  though  some  particular 
persons  had  thought  otherwise,’  and  expressed  his  concern  ‘  that  you  do  not  leave  the 
world  in  a  delusion  and  false  hope  to  the  hinderance  of  your  eternal  happiness,'  by 
doubting  the  saving  article  of  faith.  Within  the  same  period.  Bishop  Sanderson  deliv¬ 
ered  the  doctrine  in  the  following  clear  and  explicit  language.  He  declares  that,  ‘  to 
blaspheme  the  holy  name  of  God,  to  sacrifice  to  idols,’  &c.,  &c.,  ‘  to  take  up  arms 
against  a  lawful  sovereign,  none  of  these,  and  sundry  other  things  of  the  like  nature, 
being  all  of  them  simple  and  de  toto  genere,  unlawful,  may  be  done  on  any  color  or 
pretence  whatsoever,  the  express  command  of  God  only  excepted,  as  in  the  case  of 
Abraham  sacrificing  his  son,  not  for  the  avoiding  of  scandal,  not  at  the  instance  of  any 
friend,  or  command  of  any  power  on  earth — not  for  the  maintenance  of  the  lives  and 
liberties  of  ourselves  or  others,  nor  for  the  defence  of  religion,  nor  for  the  preservation 
of  the  Church  and  State  ;  no,  nor  yet,  if  that  could  be  imagined  possible,  for  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  a  soul,  no — not  for  the  redemption  of  the  whole  world.’  This  was  considered  a 
very  orthodox  effusion.” — Dublin,  Review. 

An  article  of  faith  that  you  dare  not  under  any  circumstances  resist  the 
kingly  power. 

Compare,  then,  the  language  of  Protestant  divines  having  this  translated 
Bible  before  them,  with  that  of  Catholic  divines  at  a  former  pei’iod,  and  see 
the  ground  which  Mr.  Ketchum  has  found  in  England  for  his  poetical  as¬ 
sertion.  But,  perhaps,  if  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  Protestant  govern  ¬ 
ment  of  Europe,  we  may  find  his  dream  realized.  Perhajis  he  may  find  his 
dream  realized  in  Prussia  ?  In  that  country  there  are  two  jirincipal  com¬ 
munions  of  Protestants,  the  Lutheran  and  the  Calvinist.  Now,  the  king 
calls  his  ofiicers  together,  and  tells  them  to  draw  up  a  liturgy  :  decrees  th/it 
both  and  and  must  believe  or  practice  this  liturgy  ?  (Laughter 

and  cheers.)  Or  he  may  go  to  Sweden,  or  to  Norway,  or  Denmark,  and 
the  dark  despotism  of  the  North,  perchance  there  he  may  find  that  liberty, 
of  which  he  speaks,  jirogressing  with  this  translation.  What  kind  of  free¬ 
dom,  let  me  ask  Mr.  Ketchum,  followed  this  “translated  Bible”  to  Ireland 
— that  everlasting  monument  to  Catholic  fidelity  and  Protestant  shame  ! 
(Ti’emendous  applause.) 

But  to  come  to  this  country — perhaps  it  was  in  New  England  among  the 
Puritans,  that  Mr.  Ketchum’s  dreajn  was  realized  —  ask  the  Quaker! 
(Laughter.)  Perhaps  it  was  in  Virginia — ask  the  Presbyterian !  Where  was 


220 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


it  ?  Let  me  tell  you.  It  was  in  Maryland,  among  tlie  Catholics.  They 
knew  enough  of  the  rights  of  conscience  to  raise  tlie  flist  standard  of  re* 
ligious  liberty  that  ever  floated  on  the  breeze  in  America.  (Cheers.)  You 
(nay  be  told  that  Roger  Williams  and  his  associates  in  Rhode  Island  de¬ 
clared  equal  rights.  Not  at  all — he  excluded  Roman  Catholics  from  exer¬ 
cising  the  elective  franchise.  But  the  Catholics  did  not  exclude  him. 
They  may  refer  to  Pennsylvania — the  reference  is  equally  unfortunate,  for 
Penn  wrote  from  England  remonstrating  with  the  Governor,  Logan,  I  be¬ 
lieve,  for  permitting  the  scandal  of  Catholic  worship  in  Philadelphia. 

Turn,  now,  look  at  the  constellation  of  Catholic  Republics,  before  Prot¬ 
estantism  was  dreamed  of  as  a  future  contingency.  Look  at  Venice, 
Genoa,  Florence,  and  that  little  republic — not  larger  than  a  pin’s  head  on 
the  map — San  Marino — which  has  preserved  its  independence  for  such  a 
long  course  of  centuries,  lest  the  science  of  republicanism  should  be  lost  to 
the  world !  Look  at  Poland — when  the  Protestants  were  persecuting  one 
another  to  the  death  in  Germany,  Poland  opened  her  gates  to  the  refugees 
and  made  them  equal  with  her  own  subjects,  and  in  the  Diet  of  Poland,  at 
which  the  law  was  passed,  there  were  eight  Catholic  Bishops,  and  they 
must  have  sanctioned  the  law,  for  the  liberalism  veto  gave  each  the  power  to 
prevent  it.  I  challenge  Mr.  Ketchum  to  point  out,  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  globe,  one  instance  of  similar  liberality  on  the  part  of  Protestants  to¬ 
wards  Catholics. 

Now,  what  becomes  of  that  beautiful  declaration  of  Mr.  Ketchum,  that 
wherever  that  translation  had  gone  liberty  followed  ?  I  know,  indeed, 
that  in  this  country  we  all  enjoy  equal  civil  rights,  but  I  know  also  that  it 
was  not  Protestant  liberality  that  secured  them.  They  grew  out  of  necessity, 
and  in  the  declaration  of  them  there  is  no  difference  made  between  one  religion 
and  another.  Catholics  contended  as  valiantly  as  any  other,  in  the  first  ranks 
of  the  contest  for  liberty.  And  I  fervently  hope  that  it  is  too  late  in  the  day 
for  any  one  to  pretend  that  Catholics  have  been  so  blinded  by  their  religion  as 
to  be  unable  to  know  what  is  liberty  and  what  is  not.  (Cheers.) 

Be  it  understood,  then,  that  not  one  of  the  objections  which  Mr.  Ketchum 
has  put  into  our  mouths  respecting  the  Bible,  was  ever  presented  to  the  Senate 
by  us. 

Mr.  Ketchum  having  thus  disposed  of  our  pretended  objections,  goes  on 
to  speak  of  the  Secretary’s  Report. 

“  They  will  be  satisfied  with  it,  it  will  give  them  what  they  ask.  Now,  let  us  see 
how  ?  There  is  no  proposition  contained  in  this  report  that  religious  societies,  as  such, 
shall  participate  in  this  fund — none.” 

Then,  Sir,  I  ask  what  is  your  objection  ?  In  New  York  before  the  Com¬ 
mon  Council  all  your  opposition  was  directed  against  “  religious  societies.” 
Mr.  Spencer  has  removed  every  ground  for  that,  and  I  therefore  ask  what  is 
your  object  ?  Your  object  is  to  preserve  the  Public  School  Society  in  the 
monopoly,  not  only  of  the  funds  contributed  by  the  citizens  for  the  support 
of  education,  but  also  of  the  children.  He  says : 

“  The  trustees  of  districts  shall  indicate  what  religion  shall  be  taught  in  those  schools ; 
that  is  to  say,  that  you  shall  have  small  masses ;  that  these  small  masses  shall  elect 
their  trustees;  and  as  the  majority  of  the  people  in  those  small  masses  may  direct,  so 
shall  be  the  character  of  the  religious  instruction  imparted.” 

IVIr.  Spencer  wishes  to  take  from  the  Society  that  very  feature  which  ia 
objected  to — that  is  to  say,  he  wishes  that  religion  shall  neither  be  exclud¬ 
ed  nor  enforced  hy  law.  And  yet,  Mr.  Ketchum,  by  his  old  jirinciple  of 
substitution,  makes  out  quite  a  different  proposition  from  the  Report,  and 
infers  that  the  Trustees  shall  have  the  power  to  prescribe  what  religion 
sliall  be  taught.  I  do  not  S3e  that  in  the  Report  at  all.  On  the  contrary, 


SPEECHES  IE  CAEEOLL  HALL, 


221 


the  Secretary  leaves  parents  at  liberty  to  act  on  that  subject  as  they  see 
proper.  Mr.  Ketchum  supposes  a  case  to  illustrate  his  view  of  the  matter, 
which  I  must  say  does  not  do  him  much  credit.  He  says  : 

“  But  when  a  school  is  formed  in  the  sixth  ward  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  which 
ward  (for  the  sake  of  the  argument  we  will  assume)  the  Roman  Catholics  have  a  ma¬ 
jority  in  the  district;  they  choose  their  trustees,  and  these  trustees  indicate  that  a 
specific  form  of  religion,  to  wit,  the  Roman  Catholic,  shall  be  taught  in  that  school — ■ 
that  mass  shall  be  said  there,  and  that  the  children  shall  cross  themselves  with  holy 
water  in  the  school,  having  the  right  to  do  so  according  to  this  report,  the  Catholics  being 
in  a  majority  there.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  can  these  Roman  Catholics  conscientiously 
send  their  children  to  school — that  is  to  say,  their  objections  to  this  system  are  to  be 
overcome  by  having  a  school  to  which  they  conscientiously  send  their  children  ;  and 
that  school  must  be  one  in  which  religion  is  to  be  taught  according  to  their  particular 
views.” 

That  is  drawing  an  inference  without  the  facts,  for  we  never  said  so,  nor 
ever  furnished  him  authority  to  say  so,  and  although  Mr.  Ketchum  has  the 
authority  of  the  Public  School  Society  to  speak^  yet  that  does  not  enable 
him,  when  he  states  what  is  not  the  fact,  to  make  it  true.  But  I  wish  to 
know  why  he  brought  up  that  picture  at  all— why  the  sixth  ward  should 
have  peculiar  charms  in  his  imagination,  or  why  he  should  have  introduced 
all  that  about  the  children  crossing  themselves  with  holy  water  And 
pray  is  it  for  Mr.  Ketchum  to  find  fault  with  what  he  supposes  to  be  reli¬ 
gious  error,  and  for  which  he  is  not  at  all  accountable  ?  Pie  has  not  shown, 
nor  has  any  man  shown  that  such  consequences  would  follow — it  is  impos¬ 
sible  that  the  Trustees  could  act  so  ridiculously  as  to  permit  such  a  thing 
— it  was  incredible  that  they,  being  responsible  to  the  officers  appointed  by 
the  State,  and  under  the  eye  of  such  vigilant  gentlemen  as  Mr.  Ketchum 
and  the  Public  School  Society,  could  permit  Mass  to  be  celebrated  in  the 
schoois  ?  Yet  such  is  the  picture  presented  by  Mr.  Ketchum,  quite  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  his  old  course,  and  in  order  to  excite  popular  prejudices,  for 
which  this  speech  seems  to  have  been  so  studiously  prepared.  For  he  well 
knew  that  amongst  a  large  portion  of  the  Protestants  there  is  a  vast 
amount  of  traditional  prejudice  against  Catholics,  which  has,  from  being 
repeated  incessantly  and  seldom  contradicted,  become  fixed,  occupying  the 
place  of  truth  and  knowledge.  Their  case  reminds  me  of  w'hat  is  related 
of  Baron  Munchausen.  It  is  said  that  when  this  celebrated  traveler  was 
old  he  had  a  kind  of  consciousness  that  there  was  some  former  j^eriod  of  his 
life  when  he  knew  that  all  his  stories  were  untrue,  but  he  had  repeated 
them  so  often  that  now  he  actually  believed  them  to  be  true !  (Loud  laugh¬ 
ter  and  cheers.) 

It  is  to  such  persons  as  are  under  the  influence  of  these  prejudices  and 
bigotries  that  Mr.  Ketchum  addresses  his  speech,  and  if  he  utter  the  sentiments 
of  the  Public  School  Society,  how,  I  ask,  can  we  confide  to  their  hands  the 
training  of  the  tender  minds  of  our  children. 

But  one  of  the  most  remarkable  things  in  this  speech  is,  that  after  having 
beaten  off  in  succession  the  different  religious  denominations,  because,  as  he 
said,  they  would  teach  religion  —  having,  in  fact,  played  one  sect  against  the 
other — Mr.  Ketchum  turns  round  and  affirms  fJiat  the  Society  itself  does  teach 
religion.  He  says : 

“  No,  sir.  I  affiim  that  the  religion  taught  in  the  public  schools  is  precisely  that 
quantity  of  religion  which  we  have  a  right  to  teach  ;  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  pub¬ 
lic  sentiment  to  teach  less  ;  it  would  be  illegal  to  teach  more.” 

The  “exact  quantity!”  Apothecary’s  weight!  (Great  laughter.)  Nothing 
about  the  quality  except  that  Mr.  Ketchum  having  made  it  an  objection  that 
we  wished  religion  in  a  definite  form,  he  will  give  it  in  an  indefinite  form — a 
fine  religion — but  at  all  events  there  is  to  be  the  “  legal  quantity.”  Well,  now 
let  us  see  something  about  the  quality  of  this  religion,  and  I  wish  to  consider 


222 


AECIIETSnOP  HUGHES. 


the  subject  seriously.  A-nd  here  let  me  refer  to  a  beautiful  sentiment  expressed 
by  the  Secretary  in  his  report — He  says  that  religion  and  literature  have  be 
come  so  blended,  that  the  separation  of  the  one  from  the  other  is  impossible 
A  more  true  or  appropriate  declaration  could  not  proceed  from  the  lips  of  any 
man  wishing  the  welfare  of  his  country  and  his  kind!  (Cheers.) 

Now,  whenever  we  made  objections  to  that  society  for  pretending  that  re¬ 
ligious  subjects  were  excluded  by  law,  it  was  on  these  grounds.  We  said,  we 
refer  you  to  the  experience  of  public  men — to  that  of  the  most  celebrated  states 
men  in  Europe,  even  to  the  infidels  of  France — who  have  uniformly  declared 
that  society  cannot  exist  except  on  the  basis  of  religion.  All  of  them,  whether 
believing  in  religion  or  not,  have  admitted  the  necessity  of  having  some  kind 
of  religion  as  the  basis  of  the  social  edifice.  But  these  gentlemen,  in  all  their 
debates,  have  contended  that  the  education  to  be  given  should  be  “purely  civil 
and  secular.”  That  is  their  official  language.  And  now  for  the  first  time  Mr. 
Ketchum  before  the  Senate,  declares  that  the  society  does  teach  religion,  and 
exactly  the  proper  quantity  I  (Cheers.)  Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  a 
passage  in  one  of  their  reading  books,  in  order  that  we  may  see  a  specimen  of 
this  religion.  I  wall  now  make  a  few  comments  on  the  passage,  but  I  do  con¬ 
ceive  that  there  are  persons  of  all  those  denominations  who  recognize  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Trinity,  who  could  not  be  induced  to  have  the  minds  of  their 
children  inocula,ted  with  such  sentiments  as  it  contains.  Keferring  to  our 
blessed  Redeemer  one  of  the  school-books  says : 

“  His  answers  to  the  many  insidious  questions  that  were  put  to  him,  showed  uncom¬ 
mon  quickness  of  conception,  soundness  of  judgment  and  presence  of  mind  ;  completely 
baffled  all  the  artifices  and  malice  of  his  enemies;  and  enabled  him  to  elude  all  the 
snares  that  were  laid  for  him.” 

Are  these  the  ideas  of  the  divine  attributes  of  the  Redeemer  which  the 
Christian  portion  of  the  community  wish  impressed  on  the  minds  of  their 
children  ?  That  such  have  been  the  sentiments  taught  by  the  society  for 
the  last  sixteen  years,  they  cannot  deny.  And  they  may  account  for  it  as 
they  please,  but  it  has  attracted  the  attention  of  many,  that  for  the  last  six¬ 
teen  years  the  progress  of  that  young  and  daring  blasphemy  that  trifles  with 
all  that  is  sacred  has  increased  tenfold  in  this  city.  How  do  I  account  for 
it  ?  In  two  ways — first,  because  a  large  ijortion  of  the  young  are  debarred 
from  the  benefits  of  education,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  the  attempt 
which  has  been  made  to  divorce  religion  from  literature.  When  such  causes 
exist  you  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  infidelity  thickens  its  ranks 
and  raises  on  every  side  its  bold  and  impious  front. 

I  have  presented  you  with  a  specimen  of  the  quality  of  that  religion  which 
Mr.  Ketchum  says  is  dealt  out  with  exact  and  legal  measure. 

Mr.  Ketchum  contends  that  it  is  a  religion  of  a  decided  character  that  we 
want.  And  pray  what  are  we  to  understand  by  religion  that  is  not  decided? 
A  religion  which  is  vague — a  general  religion?  What  is  the  meaning  of 
these  terms?  I  desire  to  have  a  definition  of  them.  If  there  is  to  be  estab¬ 
lished  by  law  a  Public  School  Society-Religion,  I  should  like  to  have  its  con¬ 
fession  of  faith,  and  be  informed  of  the  number  of  articles,  and  the  naturo 
of  tlie  doctrines  contained  in  them.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  Mr.  Ketchum 
and  this  Public  School  Society  resemble  a  body  of  men  who  are  opposed  to 
all  physicians  because  they  understand  medicine,  and  who,  althougii  them¬ 
selves  opposed  to  all  practice  of  medicine,  are  yet  disposed  to  administer  to 
the  i)atients  of  the  regular  practitioners.  And  the  comparison  holds  good — 
for,  after  all,  children  are  born  with  a  natural  moral  disease — want  of  knowl¬ 
edge,  and  evil  propensities — and  education  and  religion  are  the  remedial 
agents  to  counteract  these  evil  tendencies  and  remove  the  natural  infirmity. 
Tlien  we  have  the  practitioners,  as  they  may  be  termed,  coming  to  see  the 
[latient,  the  wliole  community  supplying  the  medicine-chest;  and  we  have 


SPEECHES  IN  CARROLL  HALL. 


223 


these  men  snrronnclicg  this  chest  and  exclaiming  to  the  physiciai  s,  “  Cleat 
oft"!  you  are  a  Thomsonian,  and  you  are  a  Broussaist,  you  are  a  Iloinoeopatliic, 
and  yon  are  a  regular  practitioner,  and  you  wish  to  prescribe  remedies  of  a 
decided  and  definite  character,  which  is  contrary  to  “a  great  principle.” 
And  having  thus  banished  all  the  physicians  they  turn  doctors  tliemselves 
and  mix  up  their  drugs  into  what  they  call  a  “general  medicine,”  of  wliich 
they  administer  what  they  call  the  legal  quantity.  (Laughter  and  cheers.) 
But  the  gentlemen  forget  that  neither  the  patient  nor  the  medicine  are  theirs. 
Those  who  furnish  the  patient  and  supply  the  medicine-chest  should  have  a 
voice  in  the  selection  of  the  doctors. 

What  do  the  gentlemen  really  intend?  They  object  to  religious  societies, 
but  after  they  had  got  them  pushed  out  of  the  house,  they  begin  to  teach 
religion  themselves!  Mr.  Ketchum  acknowledges  that.  He  an’d  Mr.  Sedg¬ 
wick,  his  associate,  however,  do  not  appear  to  have  studied  theology  in  the 
same  school.  One  says  that  religion  is  the  basis  of  all  morality,  the  other 
that  morality  is  the  basis  of  religion.  And,  after  all,  do  men  agree  any  more 
iu  their  views  of  morality  than  religion?  Certainly  not.  And  yet  you  must 
give  to  the  children — especially  those  of  that  class  attending  these  schools, 
for  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  they,  for  the  most  part,  do  not  enjoy  the 
opportunity  of  parental  or  pastoral  instruction — some  supply  of  religious 
education.  They  are  the  offspring  of  parents,  who  unfortunately  cannot 
•supply  that  deficiency;  and  if  they  are  brought  up  in  this  way  with  a  kind 
of  contempt  for  religion — or  with  the  most  vague  idea  of  it,  the  most  lament¬ 
able  results  must  necessarily  follow. 

I  now  come  to  another  point,  the  non-attendance  of  the  children  at  the 
schools.  Whilst  our  humble  scliool-rooms  are  crowded  to  excess,  the  Societj’- 
have  been  obliged  to  give  $1,000  a  year  for  recruiting  for  children.  In  Grand 
street  they  have  erected  a  sjdendid  building,  almost  sufficient  to  accommo¬ 
date  the  Senate  of  the  State,  and  besides  all  that,  we  find  they  are  able  to 
lavish  public  money  in  payment  of  agents  to  collect  children.  Mr.  Seton, 
who  has  been  a  faithful  agent  of  the  Society,  made  that  fact  known,  and 
stated  that  by  this  means  800  children  were  collected.  And  to  whom  was 
this  money  given?  To  tract  distributors — a  very  good  occupation  theirs  I 
have  no  doubt;  but  at  the  same  time  that  was  rather  a  singular  appropria¬ 
tion  by  men  so  extremely  scrupulous  lest  any  portion  of  the  public  money 
should  go  to  the  support  of  any  sect.  But  I  suppose  that  was  on  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  what  Mr.  Ketchum  calls  “giving  and  taking” — that  is  you  give  a 
tract  and  take  a  child.  (Laughter  and  cheers.) 

Then  we  have  quite  an  effort  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Ketchum  to  prove  that 
the  trustees  discharge  their  onerous  duties  much  better  than  officers  elected 
by  the  people.  I  will  quote  his  remarks  on  that  point;  “This  Public 
School  Society  receives  its  daily  sustenance  from  the  representatives  of  the 
people — and  the  moment  that  sustenance  is  withdrawn,  it  dies, — it  cannot 
carry  on  its  operations  for  a  day.” 

A  most  beautiful  subversion  of  the  actual  order !  For  so  far  from  the 
Common  Council  patronizing  the  Society,  it  is  the  Society  that  patronizes 
f  he  Common  Council — taking  them  into  partnership  the  moment  they  are 
elected,  and  so  far  from  being  dependent  on  the  Council,  as  was  well  re¬ 
marked  by  a  greater  authority  than  I  am  on  this  subject,  the  Council  were 
dependent  on  the  Society.  The  schools  belong  to  the  Society,  just  as  much 
as  the  Harlem  Bridge  does  to  the  Company  who  built  it.  What  remedy  is 
there  then  ?  The  Society,  self-constituted,  a  close  corporation,  takes  into 
piartnership  the  Common  Council,  which  then  becomes  part  and  parcel — 
bone  of  the  bone,  and  flesh  of  the  flesh — -of  the  Society,  and  if  any  differ¬ 
ence  arises  between  the  citizens  and  the  Society,  a  committee  of  that  very 
Society  adjudicates  in  the  cause !  Thus  we  have  found  that  the  Common 


224 


A.RCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Council,  after  having  denied  our  claim,  and  even  ■when  about  to  retire  and 
give  place  to  their  successors,  followed  us  to  Albany,  and  their  last  act — 
like  that  of  the  retreating  Parthian  who  flung  his  clart  behind  him — was 
to  lay  their  remonstrance  on  the  table  of  the  tribunal  to  which  we  had 
appealed. 

Mr.  Ketchum  says  :  “  Here  are  agents  of  the  people — men  who,  having  a 
desire  to  serve  mankind,  associate  together;  they  offer  to  take  the  superin¬ 
tendence  of  particular  works,  they  offer  themselves  to  the  public  as  agents 
to  carry  out  certain  benevolent  purposes  ;  and,  instead  of  jjaying  men  for 
the  labor,  they  v»lunteer  to  do  it  for  you,  ‘  without  money  and  without 
price,’  under  your  directions — to  do  it  as  your  servants — and  to  give  an 
account  to  you  and  an  account  to  the  Legislature.  Voluntary  public  ser¬ 
vice  is  always  more  etficient  than  labor  done  by  servants  chosen  in  any 
other  way.” 

So  that  because  they  serve  gratuitously,  they  discharge  their  duties 
much  better  than  if  elected  by  the  peo2)le  !  Well,  let  us  imiKOve  ujjon  the 
hint.  Perhaps  some  of  them  may  be  kind  enough  to  discharge  the  more 
important  functions  of  the  government  for  nothing  !  But  if  volunteers  be 
more  efficient  than  officers  chosen  by  the  votes  of  the  peojAe,  let  us  abol¬ 
ish  the  farce  of  elections  altogether.  Not  satisfied  with  this,  Mr.  Ketchum 
also  would  seem  to  contend,  that  the  volunteers  are  not  to  be  held  respon¬ 
sible  ! 

To  establish  his  'views  on  this  point,  Mr.  Ketchum  refers  to  charitable 
and  benevolent  institutions.  But  where  is  the  justice  of  the  comparison  ? 
The  sick  are  incompetent  to  secure  their  own  i^rotection  and  recovery. 
The  inmates  of  houses  of  refuge,  on  which  Mr.  Ketchum  has  a  beautiful 
aposti’ophe,  referring  to  his  own  share  in  the  erection  of  that  one  estab¬ 
lished  in  this  city,  are  likewise  unable  to  take  care  of  themselves.  And 
here  let  me  say,  in  all  sincerity,  to  Mr.  Ketchum,  that  if  he  and  the  Public 
School  Society  determine  to  i^erpetuate  their  system,  if  they  continue  to 
exclude  religion  from  education,  and  at  the  same  time  to  deprive  four- 
fifths  of  the  children,  as  now,  of  any  education  at  all — then  he  had  better 
stretch  his  lines,  and  lay  the  foundation  of  houses  of  refuge,  as  the  appro- 
jiriate  suj)plement  to  the  system.  Neither  does  the  comijarison  hold,  as  I 
have  before  shown,  in  reference  to  lunatic  asylums,  &c. 

Then  Mr.  Ketchum  goes  on  to  illustrate  further,  and  says  :  “  But  it  is 
said,  and  said  too  in  the  report  of  the  Secretary,  that  he  iDroj^oses  to  retain 
these  Public  Schools.  How  retain  them  ?  One  of  the  features  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  nesv  law  is,  that  all  school  moneys  shall  be  paid  to  the  teachers. 
Under  such  a  law  we  cannot  live  a  day — not  a  day.” 

What  an  acknowledgment  is  that !  That  a  law  which  would  make 
education  free — giving  equal  rights  to  all — would  be  the  death-warrant 
of  the  Public  School  Society.  There  is  another  jjoint  on  which  Mr. 
Ketchum  does  not  now  dwell  so  emphatically.  He  says,  that  there  were 
a  large  number  of  tax-payers  who,  wonderful  to  relate,  asked  for  the 
jjrivilege  of  being  taxed,  asked  for  that  privilege,  for  the  jiurpose  of 
sujjplying  the  Public  School  Society  with  money  to  carry  out  their  benev¬ 
olent  iJiuq^oses. 

Mr.  Ketchum  seems  to  consider  that  at  that  time  there  was  a  kind  of 
covenant  made  between  the  jjetitioners  to  be  taxed,  and  the  State  authori¬ 
ties,  that  when  they  petitioned  and  were  taxed,  the  authorities  of  the  State 
bound  themselves  to  keej)  up  the  system  in  perpetuum.  But  did  these  jter- 
sons  ask  to  be  taxed,  exclusively,  out  of  their  own  pockets,  or  did  they  ask 
for  a  system  of  taxation  which  should  reach  all  the  tax-j^aying  citizens  of 
New  York.  There  is  a  fallacy  in  Mr.  Ketchum’s  argument  here.  He  sup¬ 
poses  that  beeause  these  persons  are  large  property  holders,  that  they  are 


SPEECHES  IN  CAEEOLL  HALL. 


225 


therefore,  jSrtr  excellence^  the  payers  of  taxes.  He  forgets  that  it  is  a  fact  well 
understood  in  the  science  of  political  economy,  that  the  consumer  is,  after 
all,  the  tax-payer — that  it  is  the  tenants  occupying  the  property  of  those 
rich  men,  and  returning  them  their  large  rents,  who  are  actually  the  tax¬ 
payers.  And  what  peculiar  merit,  then,  can  Mr.  Ketchum  claim  for  these 
owners  of  pro2:)erty,  and  petitioners  to  have  all  the  rest  of  the  citizens  taxed 
as  well  as  themselves  ?  But  he  insists  that  there  was  an  agreement,  a 
cor'enant  entered  into  between  them  and  the  State  authorities,  and  if  you 
interfere  with  its  iirovisions,  you  must  release  these  tax-payers  from  their 
obligations  as  such.  With  all  my  heart — I  have  no  objection !  All  we 
want  is,  that  there  should  be  no  unjust  interference — no  exclusive  system — 
no  extraneous  authority  interptosed  between  the  tax-jiayer  and  the  purpose 
for  which  the  tax  is  collected.  But  the  fact  that  others  besides  these  pe¬ 
titioners  are  equally  involved  in  the  burthen,  demolishes  this  argument  of 
Mr.  Ketchum. 

In  his  conclusion,  the  learned  gentleman  insists,  that  unless  the  Society 
remain  as  it  is,  it  cannot  exist.  And  then  he  goes  on  further,  for  it  would 
be  impossible  for  him  to  close  his  speech  without  again  reminding  the  Sen¬ 
ate  that  we  are  Homan  Catholics. 

lie  SflVs :  “  The  preople  in  New  York  understand  the  subject,  and'  the 
Roman  Catholics  cannot  say  that  they  will  not  be  heard  as  well  there  as 
here.  Why  not  leave  the  matter  to  us,  the  peoprle  of  the  city  of  New 
York  ?’■ 

Thus,  Mr.  Ketchum,  after  having  first  endeavored  to  imjrress  the  minds 
of  the  Senate  that  we  had  had  all  imaginable  fair-jjlay,  that  other  denom¬ 
inations  had  made  app)lications  similar  to  ours,  which  is  not  the  fact,  that 
our  jjetition  had  uniformly  been  denied  in  the  several  boards  rejjresenting 
the  jieople  of  New  York;  whereas  he  knew  that  on  this  question,  the  pieo- 
IJlc  of  New  York  were  never  represented  by  the  Common  Council ;  he  goes 
on  to  say,  at  last,  “  Why  not  leave  the  matter  to  us — the  people  of  the  city 
of  New  York?”  I  trust  not,  if  a  committee  of  the  Public  School  Society, 
called  the  Common  Council,  are  to  be  at  once  parties  aud  judges,  I  hope 
that  the  question  will  not  be  referred  back ;  although,  for  Mr.  Ketchum’s 
satisfaction,  I  may  state,  that  if  it  were  so  referred,  the  Common  Council 
would  not,  I  will  venture  to  say,  now  decide  upon  it  by  such  a  vote  as  they 
did  before ;  when  one  man  alone  had  the  courage,  whether  he  was  right  or 
wrong,  to  say  nay,  when  all  said  yes !  (Loud  and  long-continued  cheering.) 

In  consequence  of  that  vote,  as  they  have  since  taken  care  to  tell  us,  this 
gentleman  lost  his  election,  but,  what  is  of  infinitely  more  imprortance,  he 
jrreserved  his  honor.  (Renewed  app^lause.)  Were  the  matter  now  before  the 
Common  Council,  they  would  see  a  thousand-and-one  reasons  for  hesitation 
l)efoi’e  deciding  as  before.  For  when  jmblic  men  see  that  any  measure  is 
likely  to  be  poj)ular,  they  can  find  abundant  reasons  for  taking  a  favorable 
view  of  the  question.  I  null  refer  Mr.  Ketchum  to  a  sign  from  which  he 
may  learn  what  he  pleases.  Since  the  Common  Council,  that  denied  our 
claims,  went  out  of  office,  their  successors  have  had  the  matter  before  them, 
and  when  in  the  Board  of  Assistants  it  was  propiosed  to  pass  a  resolution 
requesting  the  Legislature  to  defer  the  consideration  of  the  question,  the 
motion  was  negatived  by  a  tie  vote. 

Still  Mr.  Ketchum  will  have  the  end  of  this  speech  something  like  the 
end  of  the  last.  Then  he  said  this  was  a  most  distressing  topic  to  the 
gentlemen  of  the  Public  School  Society — that  they  were  men  of  peace — 
that  I  do  not  controvert,  but  certainly  I  must  say  that  in  the  course  of 
this  contest  they  appear  to  have  exhibited  a  spirit  contrary  to  their  natures ! 
— but  so  peaceful  were  they,  Mr.  Ketchum  said,  that  if  any  longer  annoyed 
they  would  throw  up  their  office  and  retire  !  (Cheers  and  laughter.)  But, 
15 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


.22G 

after  all,  they  could  send  their  agents  to  Albany  to  oppose  us  there — the 
one,  Dr.  Rockwell,  to  disseminate  a  burlesque  on  our  faith  from  'Tristram 
Shandy — the  other,  Mr.  I^etchum,  to  plead  as  zealously,  but  I  think  not  as 
successfully,  as  ever  against  the  recognition  of  our  claims. 

Mr.  Ivetchum  says :  “  Now  the  contest  is  renewed,  and  the  trustees 

engage  in  it  with  extreme  reluctance ;  they  have  no  personal  interests  to 
advance,  and  they  are  very  unwilling  to  be  put  in  hostile  array  against 
any  of  their  fellow-citizens.” 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  lateness  of  the  hour  admonishes  me  that  I  have  tres¬ 
passed  too  much  upon  your  patience ;  I  have  but  one  observation  to  make 
in  conclusion.  These  gentlemen  have  spoken  much  and  laid  great  emphasis 
on  the  importance  of  morality,  but  as  I  have  already  remarked,  morality  is 
not  always  judged  of  by  the  same  criterion.  Let  me  illustrate  this.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  the  morality  which  mj/ religion  teaches,  if  I  rob  a  man,  or  injure  him 
in  his  property,  and  desire  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  I  must  of  all,  if  it 
be  in  my  power,  make  rejiaration  to  the  man  whom  I  have  injured.  Again, 
if  I  should  unfortunately  rob  my  neighbor  of  his  good  name — of  his  repu¬ 
tation — either  by  accident  or  through  malice,  before  I  can  hope  for  recon¬ 
ciliation  with  an  offended  God,  I  must  repair  the  injury  and  restore  my 
neighbor’s  good  name.  If  I  belie  him  I  must  acknowledge  thft  lie  as 
puldicly  as  it  was  uttered — that  is  Catholic  morality. 

Well,  now,  these  gentlemen  have  belied  us — they  have  put  forward  and 
circulated  a  document  which  existed  only  in  the  imagination  of  Sterne — a  foul 
document — and  repi'esented  it  as  a  part  of  our  creed.  I  do  not  say  that  they 
directly  required  this  to  be  done ;  but  their  Agent  did  it,  and  he  cannot  deny 
it.  I  wonder  now,  then,  if  they  will  have  such  a  sense  of  morality  as  will 
impel  them  to  endeavor  to  repair  the  injury  thus  done  to  our  reputation,  by  any 
official  declaration  that  that  is  a  spurious  document  ?  I  wonder  if  the  consci¬ 
entious  morality  that  presides  over  the  “  Journal  of  Commerce  ”  will  prompt  its 
editors  to  such  a  course  ?  If  it  do  not,  then  it  is  a  monality  different  from  ours. 

I  apprehend  that  no  such  reparation  will  be  offered  for  the  injury  we  have 
sustained  by  the  everlasting  harangue  of  abuse  and  vituperation  that  has  been 
poured  out  against  us  for  these  few' years  past.  Have  we  not  been  assailed 
with  a  foul  and  infamous  fiction  in  the  pages  of  a  work  called  “Maria  ]\Ionk?” 
and  have  its  Reverend  authors  ever  stood  forward  to  do  us  justice  and  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  untruth  ■which,  knowing  it  to  be  so,  they  published?  Have  they  ever 
attempted  to  counteract  that  obscene  poison  which  they  disseminated,  corrupt¬ 
ing  the  morals  of  youth  throughout  every  hamlet  in  the  land  ?  Whilst  de¬ 
nouncing  in  their  ecclesiastical  assemblies  the  works  of  Byron  and  Bulwer,  did 
they  include  in  their  denunciation  the  filthy  and  enormous  lie,  published  under 
their  auspices — the  writings  of  “  Maria  Monk  ?”  What  idea,  then,  must  we 
form  of  their  morality  and  religion  ?  And,  here,  it  would  be  unjust  to  omit 
mentioning  that  many  Protestants,  not  under  the  influence  of  blinded  bigotry, 
have  done  us  justice  on  this  point.  In  particular  I  refer  to  the  conduct  of  one 
distinguished  Protestant  writer,  who  cannot  be  accused  of  great  partiality  for 
us,  but  who  exposed  and  refuted  the  authors  and  abettors  of  this  filthy  libel,  to 
which  I  have  referred.  I  know  that  it  would  be  incorrect  and  unjust  to  say 
that  thousands  of  others,  sincere  Protestants,  but  high-minded,  honorable  men, 
have  not  taken  the  same  view  of  the  subject.  But  I  speak  particularly  of  the 
morality  of  the  authors  and  publishers  of  these  abominable  slanders,  and  I 
regret  that  the  Public  School  Society,  by  their  recent  proceedings,  should  have 
allowed  themselves  to  sink  to  a  kindred  degradation ! 

[The  Right  Rev.  Prelate  here  resumed  his  seat,  amid  thunders  of  appla  .ise, 
which  lasted  several  minutes.] 


ME.  KETCHUM’s  EEJOINDER. 


227 


REVIEW  OE  MR.  KETCHUM’S 
REJOINDER, 

so  FAR  AS  HE  HAS  GONE,  BY  BISHOP  HUGHES. 


[Mr.  Ivetchnm  having  attempted  a  reply,  through  the  columns  of  one  of  the  city 
papers,  to  Bishop  Hughes’  great  speech  in  Carroll  Hall,  on  the  evenings  of  June 
16th,  17th  and  21st,  1841,  the  following  review  of  Mr.  Ketchum’s  “  rejoinder  ”  ap¬ 
peared  in  the  Freeman's  Journal  of  August  7th,  1841.] 

I  DO  not  deem  it  necessary  to  wait  for  the  conclusion  of  tlte  re> 
joinder,  inasmuch  as  the  American  in  which  it  is  published,  tells  us 
that  “  every  part  is  complete  in  itself.”  When  Mr.  Ketchum  pub¬ 
lished  his  speech  before  a  Committee  of  the  Senate,  I  announced 
that  I  should  review  and  refute  it.  The  word  refute  is  printed  in 
capitals  by  Mr.  Ketchum,  I  know  not  for  what  purpose.  If  I  had 
any  doubt  as  to  the  fulfillment  of  my  promised  refutation,  the  Re¬ 
joinder,  so  far,  at  least,  has  completely  removed  it.  Indeed  I  am  at 
loss  to  know  what  meamim  the  gentleman  attaches  to  the  word  Re- 
joinder,  but  in  my  judgment,  the  truest  title  he  could  have  given  to 
ins  last  production  would  have  been,  if  he  had  called  it,  “A  eepeti- 

Tioisr  OF  WHAT  I  HAVE  SAID  BEFORE - PARTLY  IN  THE  SAME  WORDS, 

AND  PARTLY  IN  OTHER  WORDS.” 

He  seems  to  find  fault  with  me  for  having  seen  fit  to  review  his 
speech  in  a  Public  Assembly ;  but  I  had  explained  the  reason  of 
this.  It  was  to  save  me  the  time  and  trouble  of  Avriting  it  down.  I 
knew  his  many  fallacies  could  be  most  easily  exposed  ;  and  yet  I 
had  but  little  leisure  for  the  work  of  their  exposition.  In  fact,  it  is 
only  because  he  is  the  official  organ  of  the  Public  School  Society, 
that  I  would  undertake  it  at  all.  Nor  would  this  have  been  neces¬ 
sary  of  either  of  the  legal  gentlemen  who  met  him  at  Albany,  had 
been  fortunate  enough  to  have  had  his  speech  reported. 

It  seems,  moreover,  that  the  “  laughter  and  cheers,”  introduced 
by  the  reporter,  have  given  ofience  to  Mr.  Ketchum.  N o w,  to  this 
I  have  to  reply  that  I  requested  the  chairman  of  the  meeting  to  for¬ 
bid  eA'ery  manifestation  of  feeling.  This  he  did  in  my  own  hearing, 
but  it  appears  he  was  not  strictly  attended  to  in  the  matter,  and  the 
reporter,  as  custom  is,  put  down  the  “  cheers  ”  and  “  laughter  ”  as 
faithfully  as  anything  that  was  said  by  me.  I  am  not  accountable 
for  this,  neither  do  I  think  that  Mr.  Ketchum  should  acquit  his  oivn 
speech  of  having  contributed  as  much  to  produce  laughter  as  any 
other  cause.  At  all  events,  I  thought  it  a  very  innocent  way  of  giv¬ 
ing  vent  to  the  exuberance  of  indign.ation,  which  the  course  of  the 


228 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  REVIEW 


learned  gentleman,  and  the  society  of  which  he  is  the  official  organ, 
was  calculated  to  excite.  They  compel  the  people  to  pay  taxes  for 
the  purposes  of  education,  and  then  wish  to  compel  them  to  receive 
such  kind  of  education  as  it  may  please  a  Close  Corporation, 
having  absolute  and  irresponsible  power  over  the  money,  over  the 
books,  over  the  Teachers  and  over  the  children,  to  impart.  For  six¬ 
teen  years  has  that  portion  of  this  people  represented  by  the  meeting 
at  Carroll  Hall,  been  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  this  taxation,  and 
that  by  the  efforts  of  this  society,  in  the  indulgence  of  its  grasping 
ambition,  and  when  they  assemble  in  a  peaceful  and  ordinary  man¬ 
ner,  to  think  and  speak  of  their  wrongs  and  to  seek  a  remedy,  Mr. 
Ketchum  would  grudge  them  even  the  privilege  of  laughing, 

Mr.  Ketchum  commenced  his  Rejoinder,  so  called,  with  a  history 
of  his  going  to  Albany,  and  of  what  occurred  there.  This  requires 
no  remark  from  me.  He  tells  us  that  the  matter  was  “  discussed 
between  himself  and  Messrs.  McKeon  and  Hawkes  in  good  temper, 
and  with  that  courtesy  which  well-bred  gentlemen  of  the  Bar  uni¬ 
formly  extend  to  each  other.” 

This  is  always  to  be  supposed  among  “  well-bred  gentlemen,” 
whether  they  belong  to  the  Bar  or  not.  It  is  a  matter  of  course, 
and  hence  my  astonishment,  when  in  the  discussion  before  the  Com¬ 
mon  Council,  where  I  presented  myself  as  a  plain  citizen,  I  found 
that  one  gentleman  of  the  Bar,  and  only  one,  brought  up  my  mitre 
and  seemed  incapable  of  making  a  speech  until  he  had  jilaced  and  re¬ 
placed  it  several  times.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether  this  was 
courteous,  and  besides,  not  being  of  the  legal  profession,  perhaps  I 
had  no  right  to  expect  that  courtesy  which  Mr.  Ketchum  says  the 
members  “  uniformly  extend  to  each  other,”  and  further  saith  not. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  whatever  appears  to  wear  even  the 
semblance  of  argument  in  this  rejoinder. 

1.  A  large  number  of  petitioners,  deeply  interested  in  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  education,  and  deeply  sutfering  by  the  present  system,  appeal 
for  relief  to  the  Legislature  of  the  S^tate.  They  are  there  met  by 
the  Public  School  Society,  and  their  petition  is  opposed  by  an  official 
remonstrance,  and  by  an  official  living  organ.  In  my  review  of  the 
remonstrance  I  proved  that  the  Public  School  Society  had  attempted 
to  mislead  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  by  submitting  in  evidence 
false  statements.  I  proved  further  that  their  legal  advocate  in  his 
speech  before  a  Committee  of  the  Senate,  had  done  the  same.  I  did 
not  say  that  either  knew  the  statements  to  be  false,  but  my  speech 
established  the  fact  of  their  being  false  in  themselves  and  slanderous 
in  their  falsehood. 

When  Mr,  Ketchum’s  Rejoinder  was  announced,  I  thought  he 
would  attempt  a  vindication  of  the  society  and  of  himself  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  this  unworthy  course.  I  can  see  none,  however,  except  that 
he  says  with  great  nonchalance  that  it  was  a  “  natural  desire  of  the 
Trustees  to  preserve  their  schools,”  and  that  “to  oppose  the  recom¬ 
mendations  of  the  Secretary,  was  therefore  their  duty.”  He  then 
asks,  but  how  should  this  be  done  ?  I  answer,  it  should  be  done 


«  *• 
OF  MR,  KETCIIUM’s  REJOINDER.  229. 

by  truth  and  argument  on  the  merits  of  the  question.  It  should  noi 
be  done  by  special  pleading — not  by  pushing  aside  the  true  facts  of 
the  case  and  “  substituting  ”  others — not  by  charging  extracts  from 
Tristam  Shandy  on  the  Petitioners  as  dogmas  of  their  religious 
faith — not  by  bearing  false  Avitness  against  their  neighbors  in  any 
way,  otherwise  it  will  appear  as  if  they  hold  the  end  to  justify  the 
means. 

2d.  Mr.  Ketchum  then  goes  over  the  old  ground  about  excluding 
religious  societies.  This  requires  no  answer,  because  it  has  been 
disposed  of  in  the  speech  to  which  this  professes  to  be  a  rejoinder. 
He  says  “the  children  in  this  State  do  not  go  to  school  to  be  in¬ 
structed  in  religion,”  Certainly  not.  Then,  I  ask  him  why  do  the 
Public  School  Society  impart  religious  instruction.  For  we  have 
Mr.  Ketch  urn’s  own  authority  for  the  fact  that  they  do  so  imp.art  it, 
except  that  they  impart  it  in  an  “  indefinite  form,”  and  iu  the  “  legal 
quantity.”  At  one  time  they  say  it  is  to  be  left  to  the  i)arents  and 
the  pastors,  as  if  the  Public  Schools  were  required  to  be  atheisti¬ 
cal  ;  at  another  they  exercise  the  children  in  singing  hymns,  saying 
prayers  and  reading  the  Protestant  version  of  the  Scripture. 

3.  There  is  nothing  so  well  shows  the  weakness  of  the  cause  ad¬ 
vocated  by  Mr.  Ketchum,  as  his  directing  his  argument,  such  as  it 
is,  to  the  prejudices  of  Protestants.  For  this  purpose  “Roman 
Catholics”  “Church  Schools,”  “Roman  Catholics”  “Sectarian 
Schools,”  “  Church  Schools,”  figure  through  the  first  paragraph  of 
his  Rejoinder  in  great  variety ;  and  with  endless  repetition.  I  am 
not  sorry  to  see  this.  It  proves  that  he  feels  that  he  has  no  A-erdict 
to  expect  from  Reason  and  Justice  ;  and  that,  therefore,  his  reli¬ 
ance  must  be  on  his  efforts  to  excite  the  religious  hatred  of  one 
class  of  citizens  against  another.  If  those  feelings  grew  out  of  any 
pretensions  on  our  part,  they  would  be  excusable.  But  they  do 
not ;  they  cannot.  We  ask  no  privilege ;  taxed,  like  our  felloAV  citi¬ 
zens  of  other  creeds,  for  purposes  of  education,  we  have  been  de¬ 
prived  of  all  benefit.  The  schools  supported  in  part  by  our  money, 
haA’e  been  conducted  in  a  manner  of  Avhich  infidels  did  not  complain, 
because  the  society  professed  to  exclude  religion,  of  which  Protest¬ 
ants  did  not  complain,  because,  contrary  to  their  own  professions, 
they  did  teach  religion,  and  that  altogether  Protestant  as  to  quality, 
and  in  Avhat  Mr.  Ketchum  calls  the  “  legal  quantity.”  In  order  to 
be  “  legal  ”  the  legislature  must  have  acted  upon  the  question.  I 
would  beg  leave  to  ask  Mr.  Ketchum  in  what  part  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  the  quantity  has  been  specified  and  enacted.  At  all  events, 
to  require  of  those  who  have  the  misfortune  to  be  neither  infidel 
nor  Protestants,  to  S(ind  their  children  to  schools  thus  constituted 
Avould  be  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  conscience.  And  does  Mr. 
Ketchum  think  that  even  his  Protestant  -countrymen  will  support 
him  in  such  an  attempt.  Does  he  think  that  the  votaries  of  bigotry 
are  more  numerous  than  the  friends  of  the  American  Constitution, 
which  secures  the  religious  as  Avell  as  the  civil  rights  of  every  man, 
whether  he  be  a  Jew,  or  Christian,  or  a  Universalist,  or  a  Calvinist, 


ARCHBISHOP  HCOHES’  REVIEW 


230 

a  Catholic  or  Protestant.  But  while  he  contends  that  the  Public 
School  Society  teach  the  “legal  quantity”  of  religion,  he  defends 
the  same  society  on  the  ground  that  it  leaves  religion  to  the  teaching 
of  the  parents  o^  the  children  and  their  ministers.  Which  of  these 
propositions  shall  M^e  believe  ?  The  one  contradicts  the  other,  and 
the  legal  gentleman  in  contempt  of  all  logic  maintains  both.  His 
harping  on  church  schools,  then,  is  a  poor  subterfuge  ;  in  the  only 
sense  in  which  it  could  be  of  service  to  his  argument,  the  charge 
that  we  Avish  to  have  “  Church  Schools,”  “  Sectarian  Schools,” 
“  Catholic  Schools,”  is  utterly  false.  We  say  give  us  such  schools 
as  we  can  frequent  without  violation  to  our  conscience,  or  if  you 
will  not,  give  us  the  quota  of  taxes  which  you  collect  from  us,  and 
apply  it  yourselves  for  the  purposes  of  educating  the  children  whom 
your  system  drives  from  the  Public  Schools.  The  evidence  that  our 
demand  extends  thus  far  and  no  further  was  before  Mr.  Ketchum. 
He  has  our  Avritten  and  official  testimony  on  the  subject  before  him, 
and  with  that  testimony,  his  insinuation  that  we  want  the  benefit  of 
education  money  for  “  Catholic  Schools f  as  such,  is  more  than  “  sub¬ 
stitution,”  it  is  a  sheer  gratuitous  invention  against  evidence  of  the 
contrary. 

These  may  seem  strong  expressions.  But  if  the  official  organ  of 
the  Public  School  Society,  either  impelled  by  his  OA\m  prejudices 
or  Avith  a  vieAv  of  acting  on  the  prejudices  of  others,  alloAvs  himself 
to  employ  unfounded  statements  as  the  basis  of  his  reasonings  to  de¬ 
feat  our  just  claims,  then  it  becomes  me  to  contradict  them  in  lan¬ 
guage  which  cannot  be  misunderstood.  WheneAmr  he  ventures  to 
make  a  statement  Avhich  is  incorrect  and  injurious,  I  must  be  alloAved 
the  privilege  of  contradicting  it  with  proper  emphasis. 

4.  In  my  speech  I  disputed  Mr.  Ketchum’s  right  to  set  forth 
the  decision  of  the  Common  Council,  in  the  city  of  NeAV  York,  on 
the  School  Question,  as  representing  the  Avill  of  their  constituents. 
I  gave  my  reasons,  1st,  because  their  connection  Avith  the  Public 
School  Society  never,  to  my  knoAvledge,  Avas  made  a  consideration 
at  the  ballot-box  ;  2d,  because  in  their  decisions  they  Avere  invari¬ 
ably  acted  upon  by  the  influences  Avhich  naturally  belong  to  this 
society  ;  3d,  because,  as  Ave  shall  prove  by  and  by  from  Mr.  Ketchum 
himself,  they  Avere  led  to  decide,  in  some  instances,  on  the  authority 
of  false  statements.  4th,  because  it  required  an  uncommon  share  of 
moral  courage  to  withstand  all  those  influences.  Noav  Mr.  Ketchum, 
in  his  Rejoinder,  passes  silently  over  all  these,  and  represents  me  as 
saying  that  the  decisions  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  Avere  not  to  be 
regarded  as  important,  inasmuch  as  the  members  had  a  direct  jier- 
sonal  interest  in  sustaining  the  Public  School  Society.  I  said  no  such 
thing.  I  said,  and  for  the  reasons  already  given,  that  as  things 
have  been  managed  they  could  not  expect  to  promote  their  interest 
by  opposing  that  society.  He  goes  on  to  tell  us  that  it  was  intended 
that  these  officers  of  the  city  should  “  spy,”  if  they  thought  pro})er, 
into  the  most  secret  actions  of  the  Board  and  of  the  Society.  But 
they  never,  he  adds,  availed  themselves  of  the  privilege.  If  then, 


OF  ME.  KETCHUM’s  EEJOINDEE. 


231 


as  lie  elsewhere  says,  they  are  to  he  regarded  as  the  representatives 
of  the  ])eople,  in  this  connection  they  were  sadly  indillerent  to  the 
trust  contided  to  them  hy  their  constituents. 

5.  But  the  recorder,  he  tells  us,  is,  ex-officio,  a  member  of  the 
Manhattan  Bank,  and  it  is  asked  whether  on  that  account  it  is  im- 
liroper  for  him  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  concerns  of  the  bank  ?  If 
he  is  the  exclusive  judge  to  decide  in  cases  affecting  the  bank,  and 
if  he  is  made  a  director  through  the  contrivance  of  the  Board  of 
Directors,  then  the  cases  would  be  parallel,  and  then  the  party  hav¬ 
ing  a  suit  with  the  bank  would  and  should  think  it  highly  improper 
that  any  director  of  the  bank  should  be  the  judge  on  the  case.  I 
believe,  farther,  that  tlie  people  would  not  tolerate  such  a  case,  and 
in  constitutional  law  Mr.  Ketchum  himself  will  be  puzzled  to  find  a 
precedent.  He  tells  us  farther,  that  the  Aldermen  are  members  of 
the  Public  School  Society,  not  in  their  private,  but  in  their  “  official 
capacity.”  That  is,  as  soon  as  they  acquire  the  power  to  distribute 
the  school  money,  and  to  drive  off  some  oppressed  portion  of  the 
community,  they  are  taken  into  membership  by  the  society ;  and  as 
soon  as  they  are  unfortunate  enough  to  lose  that  power,  then  the 
society  cuts  the  connection— the  partnership  is  dissolved  !  Really 
this  is  a  singular  circumstance  for  Mr.  Ketchum  to  bring  forward. 
He  has  just  stated  that  these  public  officers,  “  never,  in  a  single 
instance,”  examined  into  the  affairs  of  the  society,  and  now  he  goes 
on  to  tell  us  that  “  if  they  act,  it  is  as  a  committee  on  the  part  of  the 
people,”  etc.  N o,  most  assuredly,  the  people  never  elected  them  for 
that  purpose.  It  is  the  work  of  the  society,  without  consulting  the 
people,  or  rather  in  disregard  of  them. 

6.  In  my  review  of  Mr.  Ketchum^s  speech,  I  stated  in  substance 
that  there  was  no  violation  of  a  sound  principle,  in  allowing  the  dif¬ 
ferent  denominations  to  receive  each  a  pro  rata  portion  of  the  school 
fund.  The  reason  is,  that  the  people  whose  contributions  make  up 
that  fund  are  no  other  than  the  different  religious  denominations. 
I  proved  this  by  the  exemption  of  churches  from  taxation.  Now 
Mr.  Ketchum  does  not  dispute  the  facts.  But  he  turns  aside  from 
the  question  of  constitutional  principle,  and  enters  into  a  calculation 
which  is  surely  too  small  for  a  great  miud  like  his. 

He  says  that  one  denomination  might  be  more  prolific  in  children 
and  less  in  taxes  than  another.  He  would  infer,  that  unless  the  per 
centum  of  taxes  and  the  per  centum  of  children  be  equal,  and  unless 
the  per  centum  of  both  be  equal  in  one  denomination  to  what  it  is 
in  another,  there  will  be  a  violation  of  his  “  great  principle.”  But 
he  seems  to  forget  that  the  pro  rata  principle  makes  even  this  ai’gu- 
ment  which,  at  best,  is  only  fit  for  a  microscope,  good  for  nothing. 
Besides,  Mr.  Ketchum  seems  to  hold  that  the  owner  of  pro])erty  and 
not  the  occupant  is  the  tax  payer.  I  believe  the  doctrines  laid  down 
in  standard  works  on  Political  Economy  will  support  me  in  main¬ 
taining  the  contrary  proposition.  It  is  the  occupant,  the  consumer, 
whether  he  be  the  oivner  in  fee,  or  merely  the  tenant,  who  pays  the 
taxes  in  reality,  although  in  the  forms  and  technicalities  of  law  it 


232 


AECUBISHOP  hughes’  REVIEW 


would  seem  to  be  the  owner  alone.  In  this  case,  also,  his  reasoning 
is  deceptive  and  unfounded. 

7.  Mr.  Ketchum  reverses  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  He  lays 
the  scene  of  illustration  in  Ireland — he  invests  the  Green  Isle  with 
all  the  attributes  of  freedom  and  equality  which  belong  to  this 
country  ;  this  is  the  land  of  oppression  from  which  the  Protestants 
tly  away,  to  seek  a  refuge  in  the  Irish  Republic.  There  are  schools 
established  there  in  which  the  Catholic  version  of  the  Scripures  is 
used — books  containing  passages  against  Luther,  Calvin,  Knox,  etc., 
are  in  the  hands  of  the  children.  These  “  Protestant  strangers  ” 
remonstrate.  They  are  told  that  the  offensive  passages  will  be 
stricken  out ;  but  as  to  the  Catholic  version  of  the  Scriptures,  they 
must  submit  to  have  it  imposed  on  their  children,  otherwise  they 
are  told,  with  polite  circumlocution,  to  go  about  their  business.  Mr. 
Ketchum  justifies  the  supposed  Catholic  Republic  of  Ireland  in 
holding  this  language  to  his  Protestant  countrymen.  I  do  not.  I 
would  hold  them  to  be  cunning  hypocritical  tyrants  over  conscience, 
if  they  acted  in^  the  manner  which  Mr.  Ketchum  approves  and 
justifies. 

And  why?  First,  Because  they  had  boasted  that  the  stranger 
had  but  to  touch  their  soil,  and  that  from  that  moment  his  conscience 
should  be  free,  and  when,  trusting  to  this,  he  lands  on  their  shore, 
they  meet  him  with  a  cunningly  devised  system  to  entangle  his  con¬ 
science  and  violate  their  chartered  pledge.  Second,  Because  they 
tax  those  “  Protestant  strangers  ”  for  the  supiiort  of  a  system,  and 
give  them  710  return  for  their  money.  Third,  Because  in  doing  all 
this  they  have  the  hypocrisy  to  pretend  that  they  have  the  kindest 
feelings  for  those  “  Protestant  strangers,”  and  have  no  wish  but  to 
educate  their  children.  Mr.  ketchum  may  justify  them,  but  I 
should  be  ashamed  of  their  hypocritical  duplicity..  They  would 
bring  a  disgrace  by  it  both  on  their  religion  and  on  their  country. 

BuL  after  ail,  we  do  not  admit  that  the  Public  School  Society  is 
yet  possessed  of  national  power  such  as  Mr.  Ketchum  supposes  in 
the  Irish  Republic.  Neither  do  we  admit  that  a  decision  of  the 
Common  Council  in  favor  of  that  society  is  equal  to  an  act  of  sov¬ 
ereign  legislation,  nor  yet  that  Catholics  are  necessarily  strangers, 
nor  yet  that  this  is  a  Protestant  Republic.  In  all  these  points  his 
reversion  of  circumstances  fails ;  although  if  his  reversed  picture 
could  have  any  value,  it  would  be  from  these  sly  touches  of  false 
coloring,  which  being  false,  I  beg  leave  most  respectfully  to  rub  out. 
That  the  great  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  country  are  7\ot 
Catholic,  I  admit ;  but  that  it  is  a  Protestant  country,  or  a  Catholic 
country,  or  a  Jewish  country,  or  a  Christian  country  in  a  sense  that 
would  give  any  sect  or  couibinaton  of  sects  the  right  to  oppress  any 
other  sect,  I  utterly  deny.  How  then  can  Hr.  Ketchum  call  it  a 
Protestant  country  ?  England  is  a  Protestant  country,  because  it 
has  a  Protestant  Church  establishment.  Does  the  gentleman  mean 
to  insinuate  the  same  of  this  country  ?  Again,  in  his  picture,  the 
Catholics  are  strangers  and  foreigners.  Many  of  them  are,  but 


OF  ME.  KETCHUM'S  EEJOINDEE. 


233 


there  is  no  denomination,  perhaps,  which  does  not  include  foreign 
ers,  but  let  me  tell  Mr.  Ketchum  that  the  Avhole  population  of  the 
United  States  is  derived  from  foreign  origin.  The  country,  too,  was 
discovered  by  Catholics  ;  they  have  taken  their  places  among  its 
earliest  settlements  ;  they  have  borne  their  part  in  its  history,  con¬ 
tributed  to  its  improvement,  stood  by  its  defence,  fought  and  bled 
for  its  independence.  With  what  propriety,  therefore,  can  Mr. 
Ketchum  assume  that  Catholics,  as  such,  are  strangers  and  foreign¬ 
ers,  more  than  any  other  denomination  ?  Among  the  neglected 
children  whom  he  labors  to  deprive  of  education,  except  on  terms 
such  as  it  would  become  only  the  high  Protestant  tories  of  England, 
or  Ireland  rather,  to  urge — there  are  those,  I  have  no  doubt,  wdio 
can  trace  as  long  a  line  of  American  ancestors  as  the  gentleman 
himself.  It  is  too  much  the  habit  of  Mr.  Ketchum,  and  of  the 
school  to  which  he  belongs,  to  regard  Catholics  and  foreigners 
as  synonymous. 

8.  The  next  division  of  the  Rejoinder  is  a  labored  effort  to  create 
a  conclusion  favorable  to  the  Public  School  Society  from  a  crowded 
and  rather  confused  assemblage  of  facts,  not  real,  but  “  substituted  ” 
according  to  a  great  “  principle.”  From  what  he  says  it  may  be 
inferred,  that  if  we  were  merely  citizens,  he  would  recognize  our 
claim  to  justice.  Men  of  ordinary  vision  would  see  merely  “  Peti¬ 
tioners  ”  in  those  who  sign  or  present  or  advocate  a  “  Petition.” 
But  Mr.  Ketchum  can  see  a  little  farther  into  the  mill-stone.  His 
deeper  penetration  enables  him  to  discover  only  “  Roman  Catholics,” 
“  Trustees,”  and  “  mitred  gentlemen.”  These  attributes  or  acci¬ 
dents  would  seem,  in  his  estimation,  to  extinguish  our  rights  as 
citizens.  We  deny  his  conclusion.  If  his  appeal  be  to  the  law,  we 
challenge  him  to  show  any  act  abridging  us  of  our  rights  on  such 
grounds.  If  his  appeal  be,  as  it  is,  not  to  the  law  of  the  land,  but 
to  sectarian  Protestant  prejudices,  we  thank  him  for  so  well  showing 
forth  the  spirit  of  the  Society  which  he  represents,  whilst  we  taunt 
him  at  the  same  time  for  such  apostacy  from  the  better  spirit  of  the 
American  Constitution.  At  all  events,  in  this  connection  we  find 
“  Roman  Catholics,”  “  Church  Schools,”  “  Catholic  Trustees,”  re¬ 
peated  ill  almost  every  line. 

One  word  on  what  Mr.  Ketchum  calls  “  Church  Schools.”  When 
our  children  were  required  to  sacrifice  their  religious  rights  at  the 
doors  of  the  Public  Schools,  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  their  admis¬ 
sion,  we  tried  to  provide  education  for  them  at  home.  Teachers 
were  engaged,  and  they  Avere  instructed  in  the  rudiments  of  educa¬ 
tion,  either  in  a  building  erected  for  the  piiiq^ose,  or  more  generally 
in  the  basement  stories  of  the  churches.  This  was  enough  for  Mr. 
Ketchum.  He  props  up  nearly  a  column  of  his  Rejoinder  Avith  repe¬ 
titions  of  the  Avords  ‘‘  Church  Schools.”  Indeed,  this,  with  the 
other  denominational  epithets  Avhich  he  clusters  and  harps  on,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  single  string  of  his  eloquence.  But  Paganini 
himself  could  not  extract  a  greater  variety  of  sounds  from  it. 

Koav  let  us  see  the  difference  betAveen  the  Public  Schools  and 


234 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHRS’  REVIEW 


ours  on  this  ground.  We  have  Mr.  Ketch  urn’s  own  authority  for 
the  fact  tliat  they  do  teach  religion  in  the  Public  Schools,  but  in 
“  the  legal  quantity,”  whilst  in  ours  it  was  taught  according  to  a 
constitutional  measurement.  Where  is  the  diflerence  ?  The  only 
difierence  is,  that  theirs  was  taught  at  the  expense  of  the  public 
funds,  to  which  v^e  are  contributors,  whilst  ours  was  taught  at  the 
expense  of  our  private  purse. 

9.  He  begins  his  next  paragraph  in  this  wise.  “  Let  us  suppose 

that  the  Bishop  receives  the  funds.”  .  .  He  knows  very  well 

that  the  Bishop  does  not  want  to  receive  the  funds.  But  in  truth, 
“  supivosition  ”  is  the  safest  region  for  him  to  dwell  in — for  when  he 
supposes,  there  is  much  less  risk  of  his  being  refuted,  than  when  he 
asserts.  There  he  may  give  eight  hundred  or  a  thousand  dollars  a 
year  to  “priests,”  “brothers”  and  “sisters”  of  charity,  just  as  his 
fancy  directs.  But  even  if  such  a  thing  were  to  happen,  it  would 
not  be  a  greater  violation  of  public  right,  than  for  the  P  ublic  School 
Society  to  give  a  thousand  dollars  a  year  of  jmblic  money,  to  tract 
distributors,  for  gathering  children  into  their  schools — which  is  not 
a  “  supposition,”  but  a  fact. 

He  tells  us  that  “  the  policy  of  the  law  is,  that  as  we  have  one 
Country  and  one  Constitution,  so  we  ought  to  be  one  people. 
Union ^  and  not  separation,  is  the  American  Motto.”  Granted. 
But  is  the  policy  of  the  Public  School  Society  the  platform  on  which 
all  this  is  to  be  accomplished  ?  Is  it  Union  consistent  with  free¬ 
dom  ;  or  union  that  violates  liberty,  that  the  law  has  in  view  ?  Is 
it  the  policy  of  the  law  to  deprive  the  citizen  of  his  rights,  if  he 
cannot  “  unite  ”  with  that  society  in  the  semi-infidel,  semi-protestant 
lirinciples,  by  which  their  schools  are  governed?  If  this  be  the 
kind  of  Union  that  is  sought  (and  no  other  would  be  of  any  use 
for  the  object  of  the  gentleman’s  argument)  a  more  certain  way  of 
destroying  Union  and  producing  separation  could  not  well  be  de¬ 
vised. 

10.  Mr.  Ketchum  said  before  the  Committee  of  the  Senate,  that 
one  of  the  grounds  of  objection  to  the  Public  School  Society, 
on  our  part,  was  “  because  they  (the  Public  School  Society)  did  not 
give  religious  instruction  in  a  definite  form.,  and  of  a  decided  and 
DEFINITE  character.^''  This  statement  he  made  to  Senators,  and 
reasoned  from,  as  if  it  were  a  fact.  And  yet,  as  I  proved  in  my 
review,  it  was  no  fact  at  all,  but  a  “  substitution  ”  of  his  own,  instead 
of  the  fact.  Men  who  allege  that  the  various  creeds,  represented 
in  their  Board,  “neutralize”  each  other,  are  about  the  last  from 
whom  we  should  expe'ct,  or  whom  we  should  permit  to  give,  “  reli¬ 
gious  instruction  in  a  definite  form.,  and  of  a  decided  and  definite 
character.”  This  was  a  legitimate  subject  for  a  “  Rejoinder  but 
the  gentleman  meets  it  so  submissively  that  I  forbear  to  press  it. 
He  says  his  statement  was  founded  on  a  “  distinction  upon  which 
candid  men  will  set  little  value.”  Little  or  much,  I  give  him  the 
benefit  of  it,  so  long  as  he  falls  back  from  the  statement  which  he 
advanced  before  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  Albany. 


4 


OF  MR.  KETCHUM’s  REJOINDER. 


235 


11.  But  I  should  have  supposed  that  Mr.  Ketch um  would  have 
been  more  cautious  in  his  statements,  from  his  having  been  mistaken 
in  regard  to  the  one  just  pointed  out.  His  next  position,  however, 
is  as  follows.  He  says :  “  thus  far,  if  I  have  been  able  to  excuse 
my  own  intentions,  it  has  been  shown,  in  opposition  to  the  argu¬ 
ments  of  Bishop  Hughes,  that  Church  Schools  are  not  Common 
Schools  ;  that  money  raised  by  taxes  imposed  on  the  people  cannot 
be  used  to  advance  the  doctrines  of  any  religious  denomination ; 
and  that  religious  societies,  as  such,  cannot  participate  in  the  school 
fund.”  Kow  I  assure  the  gentleman  that  if  these  were  his  inten¬ 
tions,  he  has  not  been  able  to  execute  them. 

The  three  propositions  which  he  has  stated  are  truisms  wdiich  I 
hold  as  well  as  he  does — and  in  oiiposition  to  which  I  am  not  con¬ 
scious  of  having  ever  framed  an  argument.  We  have  ever  declared 
against  the  misrepresentations  which  the  gentleman  and  his  col¬ 
leagues  multiplied  around  us,  that  “  we  would  scorn  to  advance  our 
religion  at  the  expense  of  any  money  but  our  own.”  1  never  used 
any  argument  inconsistent  with  that  declaration.  W e  proposed  to 
place  our  schools  under  the  management  of  the  Public  School 
Society,  and  that  the  books  to  be  used  should  contain  nothing  of 
our  dogmas,  nothing  against  the  creed  or  character  of  other  denom¬ 
inations.  And  as  to  participating  in  the  school  fund,  it  is  as  citizens 
we  wmuld  be  considered,  if  Mr.  Ketchum  ivould  allow  us.  But  the 
merit  of  his  ingenuity  consists  in  elevating,  or  depressing  us,  just 
as  you  may  please  to  call  it,  into  a  religious  society,  and  then  battling 
us  “  as  such,”  to  use  his  own  favorite  phrase. 

12.  Mr.  Ketchum  next  makes  his  comments  on  the  Secretary’s 
report,  and  passes  on  to  an  exhibition  of  the  consequences  that  must 
follow,  in  the  expulsion  and  expurgation  of  school  books,  if  the  re¬ 
commendations  of  the  Secretary  or  the  claim  of  the  petitioners  be 
granted.  He  contends  that  the  Bible  and  a  great  many  English 
classical  works  must  be  banished  from  the  schools,  before  the  peti¬ 
tioners,  “  the  Roman  Catholics,”  will  be  satisfied.  According  to 
him,  the  district  system  will  bring  them  no  relief  which  they  may 
not  find  in  the  public  schools. 

Then  follows  an  episode  on  the  mutilation  of  an  eloquent  burst  of 
the  Earl  of  Chatham,  the  hiatus  being  supplied  by  melancholy  black 
lines.  When  I  first  saw  these  lines,  knowing  that  in  Gernuany 
music  is  a  part  of  common  school  education,  I  thought  Mr.  Ketchum 
was  about  to  introduce  the  system  here,  and  that  these  lines  exhibited 
the  stave  already  prepared,  on  which  it  would  be  so  easy  to  write 
the  notes,  and  mark  off  the  bars.  But  on  closer  inspection,  I  found 
it  was  only  the  mourning  dress,  for  the  absence  of  a  passage  from 
the  noble  Earl’s  speech,  about  the  “  tyranny  of  Rome,”  “■  Popish 
cruelties,”  and  “  inquisitorial  practices.”  The  editor  of  the  American, 
too,  in  a  special  article,  mourns  with  Mr.  Ketchum  over  the  grave 
of  these  eloquent  phrases,  of  which  the  black  lines  may  stand  as  the 
silent  epitaph  ;  and  the  good  editor  seems  to  say -to  his  readers,  “  ye 
who  have  tears  to  weep,  prepare  to  shed  them  now.”  This  is  all 


236 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  REVIEW 


fair.  But  when  he  arraigns  us  for  the  cruelty  that  has  been  exer 
cised  on  these  eloquent  passages,  we  must  be  allowed  the  ordinary 
privilege  of  pleading,  and  we  say  “  not  guilty.” 

The  learned  gentleman  himself,  and  his  colleagues  of  the  Public 
School  Society,  are  our  witnesses,  that  we  never  asked  them  to  mu¬ 
tilate  books  on  our  account.  This  havoc  in  English  literature  is  en¬ 
tirely  the  gratuitous  work  of  the  society  itself;  and  when  the 
American  makes  “Romish  priests”  the  object  of  its  courtly  repri¬ 
mand,  for  this  cause,  it  reminds  one  strongly  of  the  situation  of  Gil 
Bias,  who  was  sure  to  get  a  flogging  whenever  his  young  master 
missed  the  lesson. 

But  when  I  found  that  Mr.  Ketchum  has  exhibited  these  black 
lines,  not  for  the  purpose  of  having  music  set  on  them,  but  to  show 
what  luxuries  of  literature  have  been  sacrificed  to  the  conscientious 
scruples  of  his  Roman  Catholic  fellow-citizens,  as  he  sometimes 
calls  us,  I  thought  of  the  terrible  retributions  with  which  patient 
Truth  often  vindicates  her  own  righteousness.  Can  this  be  the 
same  Mr.  Ketchum  who,  in  the  spring  of  1840,  averred  before  the 
Committee  of  the  Board  of  Assistants,  that  there  was  nothing  in 
the  books  of  the  Public  School  Society  which  reflected  injuriously 
on  the  religion  of  Catholics  ?  This  averment  could  not  but  have  its 
effect  on  their  decision.  That  decision  has  been  quoted,  among 
others,  before  the  Committee  of  the  Senate,  as  evidence  of  what  was 
always  the  judgment  of  the  public  authorities  of  Kew  York.  And 
now,  in  July,  1841,  we  have  this  same  gentleman  supplying  the  evi¬ 
dence  in  black  and  white,  with  his  own  pen,  that  the  statement 
made  by  him  and  his  colleagues  in  1840  was  not  true,  and  therefore 
was  calculated  to  mislead  the  honest  judgment  of  the  Committee 
and  of  the  public,  who  naturally  believed  it.  But  so  it  is. 

1 3.  Mr.  Ketchum  next  turns  to  the  bill  introduced  in  the  Senate, 
and  to  his  great  amazement  he  discovers  that  it  would  remove  the 
grievances  of  which  the  petitioners  complained !  Why,  certainly. 
What  would  be  the  use  of  a  bankrupt  law,  if  it  did  not  bring  relief 
to  the  bankrupts  ?  He  finds  that  the  present  system  ought  to  be 
preferred.  And  his  reasoning  on  that  point  is  curious.  The  rich 
as  well  as  the  poor,  in  the  present  system,  can  have  their  children 
educated  at  the  public  expense.  But  in  the  proposed  system,  if 
there  should  not  be  enough  for  both,  the  poor  children  who  cannot 
pay,  are  to  be  educated  without  expense,  and  if  any  are  to  be  re¬ 
quired  to  pay,  it  will  be  those  who  have  the  means  to  do  so.  The 
education  of  the  poor  is  one  of  the  noblest  works  of  philanthro])y  ; 
one  of  the  wisest  measures  of  policy  on  the  part  especially  of  all 
free  governments.  To  make  war  on  that  principle,  as  Mr.  Ketchum 
does,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  age — neither  is  it  in 
harmony  with  the  indignation  which  he  manifests  at  the  idea  of  hav¬ 
ing  the  “names  of  the  children  of  poverty  put  on  the  public 
records.”  This  phrase,  with  the  help  of  capital  letters,  Mr.  Ketchum 
may  regard  as  a  grand  popular  hit.  But  does  he  forget  that,  in  the 
present  system,  according  to  himself,  the  Public  School  Society  are 


OF  MR.  KETCHUM’S  REJOIJifDER. 


237 


“  Almo^^ees  ?”  and  if  so,  he  has  already  decided  tha  t  both  rich  and 
poor,  who  receive  education  in  tlieir  schools,  are  “  paupers.”  He 
has  placed  all  who  receive  the  bounty  of  these  “  Almoners  ”  on  a 
level  with  the  inmates  of  the  Alms-house  and  Lunatic  Asylum — 
from  which  comparisons  he  has  remorselessly  borrowed  arguments 
for  the  guidance  of  honorable  Senators.  And  this  is  the  same  gen¬ 
tleman  who  is,  or  affects  to  be,  indignant  at  the  idea  of  a  prospect 
which  secures  the  advantages  of  education  to  the  poor  man’s  chil¬ 
dren  on  his  declaring  (no  disgrace,  assuredly)  that  he  is  unable  to 
■pay  for  it.  He  asks  whether  the  author  of  this  project  “  can  have 
an  American  heart !”  If  an  American  heart  means  a  large,  liberal, 
republican  heart,  that  loves  justice  and  equality,  then  his  heart  is 
evidently  far  more  “  American  ”  than  that  of  his  assailant. 

“But,”  says  Mr.  Ketchum,  “will  not  the  Roman  Catholics  greatly 
gain  by  this  mode  of  distributing  the  funds?”  No.  The  commu¬ 
nity  will  gain  by  it — the  State  will  gain  by  it.  The  thousands  and 
thousands  of  poor  children,  now  outcasts  from  education,  will  be 
brought  within  her  temple,  and  qualified  to  benefit  their  country  in 
after  life,  instead  of  being  left  in  ignorance,  a  prey  to  vice,  and  a 
scourge  to  society.  Their  being  Catholics  or  Calvinists  is  a  matter 
of  chance  or  choice,  with  which  a  right-minded  American  Legislator 
can  have  nothing  to  do. 

14.  The  third  section  of  the  Rejoinder,  published  in  the  American 
of  24th  July,  is  so  much  weaker  than  even  the  weakest  portions 
of  his  previous  chapters,  that  it  scarcely  needs  a  reply.  Indeed, 
if  I  had,  at  any  time,  thought  that  Mr.  Ketchum  had  looked  beyond 
the  considerations  which  usually  operate  on  the  mind  of  an  ad¬ 
vocate  professionally  engaged  —  if  I  had  thought  that,  at  any 
time,  he  regarded  this  question  on  high  public  grounds,  apart  from 
very  strong  religious  prejudices  which  manifestly  operate  on  his 
feelings,  I  should  have  respected  his  opposition;  and,  considering 
the  symptoms  of  misgiving  exhibited  in  his  last  section  of  the  Re¬ 
joinder,  flattered  myself  with  the  hope  that  in  the  progress  of  the 
disciission,  new  views  and  better  light  were  breaking  on  his  mind. 
But  the  ground  of  that  hope  is  destroyed  by  the  course  which  he 
has  pursued  from  the  commencement.  Does  he  argue  the  question 
on  its  merits,  as  a  public  man  should  ?  Does  he  appeal  to  truth  and 
justice?  or  rather,  does  he  not  appeal  to  religious  prejudice,  and  to 
what,  under  the  clouded  light  of  that  prejudice,  he  considers  “  ex¬ 
pediency?”  Now  I  can  tell  him  that  this  mode  is  not  calculated  to 
])rocure  any  advantage  to  the  State,  or  the  community,  or  his  own 
reput.ation.  States  and  communities,  as  well  as  individuals,  should 
remember  that  “honesty  is  the  best  policy,”  and  he  who  recom¬ 
mends  any  other  policy  will  never  be  ranked  among  either  the  bene¬ 
factors  or  ornaments  of  mankind. 

15.  Mr.  Ketchum  here  introduces  a  retrospective  synopsis  of  his 
labors,  at  the  termination  of  which  he  closes  the  circle  of  his  argu¬ 
ments  for  the  last  eighteen  months,  by  telling  us  that  “  we  are  at 
the  very  point  from  which  we  started,  and  the  question  is  now  as  it 


238 


ARCHBISHOP  HHGHEs’  REVIEW 


was  th«n:  Shall  the  School  Fund  be  applied  to  religious  or  sectarian 
purposes?”  No,  sir;  not  in  the  sense  in  which  you  unfairly  employ 
these  terms.  You  know  that  this  is  not  the  question.  But  the  true 
question  is ;  Shall  the  Legislature  of  the  State  abandon  to  ignorance 
the  children  of  this  metropolis,  who  cannot  consent  to  be  given  over 
to  the  irresponsible  training,  sectarian  or  anti-sectarian,  just  as  you 
may  please  to  call  it,  of  the  Public  School  Society  ? 

16.  He  next  takes  an  extract  from  the  Catholic  Expositor  to  show 
“farther,”  that  the  object  of  the  Roman  Catholics  is  to  “establish 
such  schools  for  the  advancement  of  their  doctrines.”  The  value 
of  this  argument  depends  on  whether  it  is  set  forth  in  the  extract, 
that  public  money  is  sought  for  that  purpose.  It  is  not  so  as¬ 
serted,  but  Mr.  Ketchum  disingenuously  conveys  that  idea  to  the 
mind  of  his  reader ;  he  says,  “  But  not  at  the  expense  of  the  State, 
my  friends.”  Who  said  it  was  to  be  at  the  expense  of  the  State  ? 
No  one.  Yet  the  learned  gentleman  suggests  and  insinuates  this. 
The  insinuation,  however,  is  utterly  false.  Again,  he  says  the 
sentiments  of  the  extract  are  “admirable  when  said  to  excite  volun¬ 
tary  contributions — but  quite  the  contrary  when  said  to  get  hold  of 
the  School  Fund.”  But  it  is  not  said.  Mr.  Ketchum  insinuates  it 
for  effect.  The  observations  were  made  to  show  the  havoc  which 
ignorance  and  vice  had  produced  among  Catholic  children,  under 
the  present  system.  I  think  the  gentleman  does  himself  great  in¬ 
justice  in  continuing  to  advocate  a  cause  which  requires  of  him  to 
have  recourse  to  such  expedients  for  its  support.  We  want  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  education  in  which  the  managers  shall  not  claim  or  exercise 
the  dangerous  power  of  i^erverting  or  destroying  the  religious  sen¬ 
timent  which  they  do  not  happen  to  approve.  You  have  no  right 
to  require  that  Catholic  children  shall  learn  your  Protestant  pi'ayers, 
Protestant  hymns,  and  Protestant  Scriptures.  Now  Mr.  Ketchum 
maintains  all  this,  the  Society  practice  all  this ;  and  yet  he  and  they 
contend  most  absurdly  that  there  is  nothing  sectarian  in  all  this ! 
If  all  were  Protestants  there  would  not  be.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
But  how  does  Mr.  Ketchum  justify  this?  By  the  will  of  the  “ma¬ 
jority.”  The  same  argument  by  which  “  Church  and  State  ”  es¬ 
tablishments  are  defended  all  over  the  world!  He  says  that  the 
object  of  the  Legislature  in  establishing  Common  Schools  was  to 
bring  the  children  of  the  community  together  so  as  to  blend  and 
harmonize  the  advocates  of  different  religions,  and  political  opin¬ 
ions,  into  one  great  national  family.  He  then  refers  to  New  Eng¬ 
land  as  a  happy  illustration.  New  England  has  indeed  much  to  be 
proud  of — but  within  her  limits  stands  her  monument  of  shame  as 
well  as  glory.  From  the  base  of  her  proud  pillar  on  Bunker  Hill, 
can  be  seen  the  black  ruins,  the  burned  convent.  This  does  not  say 
much  for  the  effect  of  her  Common  Schools.  So  far,  at  least,  I  think 
the  gentleman  will  agree  that  New  England  is  not  a  fit  model  for  the 
imitation  of  New  York. 

17.  He  next  introduces  the  discontent  of  a  minority  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature  at  a  decision  of  the  majority  on  the  School  Question,  as  a  par- 


OF  ME.  KETCHUM’s  EEJOUiTDEE. 


233 


alle]  to  the  case  of  the  petitioners.  He  is  at  fault  in  the  comparison. 
The  reason  is  that  a  minority,  according  to  his  text,  are  actuated  by 
a  caprice.  They  say,  “We  do  not  approve  of  one  or  all  these  books.” 
But  let  him  suppose  the  majority  were  to  say,  “  Be  it  enacted  that 
the  books  of  Common  Schools  shall  contain  lessons  laudatory  of 
Catholic  ages  of  Christianity,  laudatory  of  men  and  principles  of  that 
creed ;  and  further,  that  the  Catholic  Scriptures  shall  be  publicly 
read;”  would,  or  could  not,  the  minority  have  a  right  to  say ’.“We 
disapprove  of  these  books  ?”  Yet,  according  to  Mr.  Ketchum,  they 
should  have  to  submit.  I  dilfer  with  him  again — I  tell  him  boldly — 
and  he  will  not  deny  it  to  sxipport  his  sophistry — that  there  are 
things  which  the  majority  have  a  right  to  decide,  and  to  which  the 
minority  are  bound  to  submit ;  but  there  are  other  things  in  which  it 
would  be  tyrannical  for  any  majority  to  decide,  and  this  is  one  of  them 
— the  relation  between  a  man’s  conscience  and  his  God.  Mr.  Ketchum 
employs  arguments  which  are  better  suited  to  the  defence  of  Church 
establishments  in  Spain,  Italy  or  England,  than  to  the  republican 
doctrines  of  this  hemisphere.  Pie  gives  another  illustration,  which 
is  equally  fallacious.  The  Society  of  Friends  do  not  allow  their 
poor  to  go  to  the  Alms-house,  and  yet  the  majority  has  decided  that 
this  shall  not  exempt  them  from  paying  taxes  to  support  that  insti¬ 
tution.  The  gentleman  contends  that  they  would  have,  on  this  ac¬ 
count,  the  same  right  to  claim  back  their  portion  of  those  taxes,  for 
the  support  of  their  poor,  that  the  petitioners  have  to  claim  their 
share  of  the  School  Fund.  Kow,  if  the  same  reasons  existed,  in  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other,  they  would.  Suppose,  for  instance,  that  in 
the  Alms-house  the  managers  should  require  of  all  the  inmates  to 
conform  to  what  they  might  call  the  “  legal  quantity  ”  of  religion ; 
and  on  the  refusal  to  do  so,  turned  the  recusant  out  to  die  in  the  streets 
— then  the  case  would  be  parallel  between  them  and  the  Public 
School  Society,  and  the  indignant  community  would  soon  hurl  such 
managers  into  private  life.  But  the  Public  School  Society  under  its 
close-corporation  privileges  can  play  the  part,  in  reference  to  the 
minds  of  the  children,  and  yet  bid  defiance  to  the  community  whose 
money  they  expend  as  to  them  seemeth  good. 

18.  Such  are  the  foundations  of  Mr.  Ketchum’s  arguments,  and 
when  building  on  these,  he  comes  to  speak  of  what  “  he  has  shown 
conclusively,  he  thinks.”  It  is  ludicrous.  He  next  tells  us  there  are 
hundreds  of  Catholic  children  attending  these  schools.  I  do  not 
believe  it — and  Mr.  Ketchum  does  not  profess  to  speak  from  his  own 
knowledge.  But  if  there  are,  it  is  against  their  conscience.  Do 
Protestants  approve  of  this  ?  I  believe  the  better  portion  of  them 
would  blush  to  have  it  supposed  that  their  religion  would  sanction 
such  refined  coercion  of  conscience,  or  required  it. 

He  next  adduces  my  testimony  in  favor  of  the  system  of  Public 
Schools.  This  would  have  been  to  other  minds  an  evidence  of  mv 
candor  and  sincerity. 

He  then  takes  a  passage  of  my  speech  out  of  its  connection  about 
examinations  in  the  schools,  with  a  view,  I  suppose,  to  show  me  as 


240 


AECHBISnOP  hughes’  REVIEW 


inconsistent,  and  as  finding  fault  with  what  I  had  first  praised.  I 
was  reviewing  that  part  of  his  speech  in  which  he  had  taken  it  for 
granted,  that,  for  giving  a  good  education,  there  were  no  schools  in 
the  world  to  be  compared,  or  at  least  to  excel,  those  of  this  society. 
What  was  the  proof?  The  examinations  —  visiting  the  schools. 
This  was  the  panacea.  Whenever  there  was  a  doubt,  his  remedy 
had  always  been  to  say  to  Aldermen  and  Senators,  “  Gentlemen,  come 
and  visit  our  schools.”  I  did  not  deny  the  excellence  of  the  schools, 
but  I  denied  that  this  proof  (and  he  never  gave  any  other)  was  suffi¬ 
cient  evidence.  Why  ?  Because  “  pet  classes,”  “  pet  pupils,”  a 
“little  training,”  a  “judicious  wink  of  the  teachers,”  etc.,  can  pre¬ 
pare  enough  for  a  satisfactory  examination,  even  in  an  indifferent 
school.  Now  it  happens  that  this  was  a  true  picture  to  a  greater 
extent  than  I  had  supposed.  The  helpless  dependency  of  the  teach¬ 
ers  on  the  will  of  the  trustees,  without  power  of  redress,  or  any 
right  of  appeal,  qualifies  them  for  the  fullest  subserviency  to  the 
wishes  of  their  absolute  employers.  Their  bread  depends  perhaps 
on  their  ability  to  get  up  a  good  examination  (i.  e.  an  exhibition  of 
acquirements)  whenever  an  important  occasion  makes  it  necessary. 
This  is  no  reproach,  it  is  human  nature.  But  just  admire  the  ingen¬ 
uity  of  Mr.  Ketchum!  Pie  extracts  from  this  charge  as  if  I  accuse 
the  “  trustees  ”  of  being  the  authors,  instigators,  or  accomplices 
in  this  proceeding,  and  calls  it  “  slander.”  It  is  his  own  invention  ; 
he  may  call  it  what  he  pleases.  Again^  I  said  the  “  external  manage¬ 
ment  of  the  schools  "was  excellent.”  Mr.  Ketchum  represents  me 
as  saying  in  effect  the  “  management  outside  of  the  school  house !” 
No,  no!  By •“ external,”  as  opposed  to  “internal,”  I  meant  what  re¬ 
lates  to  the  body  as  distinguished  from  what  relates  to  the  mind :  hours 
of  attendance,  decorum  of  behavior,  respect  to  the  teachers,  puntu- 
ality,  order  and  discipline  of  the  schools,  etc.  All  this  was  external 
management  which  I  thought  excellent.  Internal  management  in 
education  would  relate  to  the  character  of  the  ideas  to  be  fixed  in 
the  young  minds  of  the  puiiils. 

For  instance,  we  have  seen,  among  other  things,  the  public  money 
employed  to  teach  the  children  “  that  the  Catholics  are  deceitful.” 
This  I  could  not  call  excellent — it  was  abominable ;  but  it  was  some¬ 
thing  internal,  i.  e.  impressing  itself  upon  the  minds  of  the  children. 
I  trust  that  this  explanation  will  show  Mr.  Ketchum  that  ivhen  edu¬ 
cation  is  divided  into  internal  and  external  the  latter  does  not  mean 
“  outside  of  the  schools,”  but  simply  outside  of  mind  and  heart  of 
the  pupil. 

19.  lie  says,  “I’he  Bishop  knows  how  to  describe  the  process  of 
blinding  the  eyes  of  the  visitors  very  well.”  I  thank  him  for  the 
compliment.  But  I  have  been  reviewing  for  some  time  his  speeches 
on  the  School  Question,  and  they  are  such  admirable  specimens  of  the 
“  blinding  process,”  that  I  have  but  little  merit  in  being  able  to  des¬ 
cribe  it  now.  Religious  prejudices,  unfair  and  unfounded  state¬ 
ments,  false  reasoning,  sophistry  and  special  pleading  have  all  been 
put  in  requisition  to  make  up  a  false  issue,  and  this  for  no  higher 


OF  ME.  KETCHUM’s  EEJOINDEE. 


241 


end  than  to  secure  one  or  other  of  two  results,  viz. :  to  wound 
the  consciences  of  Catholic  children  by  making  them  attend  public 
schools  constructed  entirely  on  Protestant  principles,  or  else  con¬ 
sign  those  children  to  ignorance  by  denying  all  other  means  of  edu¬ 
cation. 

How  much  more  worthy  of  Mr.  Ketchum’s  professional  rank,  if  he 
were  found  pleading  for  those  he  opposes,  if  he  were  found  shedding 
the  light  of  a  superior  mind,  and  the  glow  of  a  warmer  and  larger 
heart  into  the  dark  and  chill  region  of  anti-Catholic  bigotry  and  pre¬ 
judices,  instead  of  ministering  new  elements  to  increase  their  density 
and  murkiness.  Why  does  he  not  leave  the  propagation  of  reli¬ 
gious  hatred  to  the  pulpit,  if  they  must  be  perpetuated,  and  preserve 
at  least  the  legal  profession  untainted  by  them  foul,  contaminating 
breath  ?  Why  does  he  not  forewarn  the  community  that  they  must 
expect  less  virtue  hereafter  from  the  children  whom  he  now  labors 
to  cut  olF  from  the  hope  of  education,  than  from  their  equals  in  age, 
who  may  look  forward  to  a  more  fortunate  and  partial  future? 
Why  does  he  not  tell  the  Legislature  and  the  Judge  that  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  crime  should  be  according  to  a  mitigated  standard  for  those 
against  whom  he  shuts  the  door  of  knowledge  unless  they  sacrifice 
that  for  which  great  men  in  all  ages  sacrificed  everything  besides — 
conscience  ?  They,  surely,  are  not  to  be  judged  by  laws  made  for  an 
educated  community. 

I  have  now  replied  to  Mr.  Ketchum’s  rejoinder  so  far  as  pub¬ 
lished  ;  neither  have  I  any  idea  that  in  what  is  yet  to  come  he  can 
produce  other  or  better  arguments  than  those  he  has  already  given. 


16 


242 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Meeting 'in  "Washington  Hall,  February  11th,  1841. 

The  largest  meeting  which  has  ever  been  convened  in  this  city  on 
the  subject  of  the  Public  School  System  of  Education  "was  held  at 
Washington  Hall,  on  Thursday  evening,  February  11,  pursuant  to 
requisition.  The  spacious  Hall — the  largest  in  the  city — was  filled 
to  overflowing.  The  greatest  enthusiasm  prevailed,  several  interest¬ 
ing  and  eloquent  speeches  were  delivered,  and  measures  were  adopted 
for  bringing  the  question  immediately  before  the  Legislature.  A 
central  executive  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a  memorial 
to  be  presented  to  that  body ;  and  meetings  in  the  several  wards 
and  the  appointment  of  a  committee  in  each  one  were  recommended. 
This  meeting  was  called  in  consequence  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen 
having  reported  adversely  to  the  Petition  of  the  Catholics  for  a  por¬ 
tion  of  the  School  Fund.  The  meeting  was  organized  by  appointing 
Thomas  O’Connor,  president ;  Francis  Cooper  and  Gregory  Dillon, 
vice-presidents  ;  and  B.  O’Connor  and  Edward  Shortill,  secretaries. 
Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  on  taking  the  chair,  remarked,  that  it 
was  not  for  the  promotion  of  party  or  sectarian  views  that  they  were 
assembled,  but  simply  to  express  their  determination  to  persevere 
in  maintaining  their  just  rights.  The  Catholics  of  New  York  had 
been  unjustly  attacked,  and  they  merely  claimed  the  exercise  of  the 
right  to  defend  themselves.  The  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Power  then  rose 
and  said  that  in  the  absence  of  Bishop  Hughes,  whose  presence  was 
momentarily  expected,  he  would  briefly  address  the  meeting.  When 
he  had  concluded.  Bishop  Hughes  rose,  and  was  received  with  loud 
cheering,  on  the  subsidence  of  which  he  spoke  as  follows :  My 
friends,  take  care  of  your  cheering,  for  if  the  advocate  of  the  school 
society  be  passing  by,  he  will  say  this  is  a  meeting  of  Whigs  or 
Democrats.  He,  you  know,  is  not  obliged  to  reason  like  other  men, 
and  if  he  should  pass  by  and  reason  so,  the  fault  will  be  yours  for 
cheering,  and  not  his  for  foolish  reasoning.  [Laughter  and  cheers.] 

My  friends,  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  over  the  ground  with  which 
you  all  arc  familiar,  and  I  will  not,  therefore,  enter  into  the  detail 
of  our  past  proceedings  in  this  matter.  We  come  here  denied  of 
our  rights,  but  not  conquered ;  and  we  tell  these  honorable  gentle¬ 
men  of  the  public  council  that  we  asked  of  them  only  our  rights. 
We  presented  a  case  that  required  the  attention  of  the  body  to 
whom  are  entrusted  the  rights  of  the  citizens  of  this  great  city. 
We  said,  here  are  our  grievances — here  are  our  complaints — if  we 
are  right,  redress  our  grievances ;  if  we  are  wrong,  point  out  our 
error.  They  did  not  point  out  the  error,  because  they  could  not 
find  one;  and  they  did  not  redress  the  grievances,  although  it  was 
in  their  power.  [Cheers.]  They  certainly  received  us  with  great 
politeness ;  and  for  myself,  I  must  say,  that  I  am  indebted  to  them 
for  their  personal  courtesy.  Nevertheless,  I  was  not  so  dark- 
sighted  as  not  to  perceive  from  the  very  beginning  that  <he  end  was 
a  foregone  one ;  because  they  called  up  all  the  spirits  of  the  “  vasty 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


2  45 

deep  ” — the  “  black,  blue  and  the  grey” — to  oppose  us.  “  If  any  one 
has  anything  to  say  against  these  men,  let  them  speak !”  Avas  their 
invitation,  and  they  were  not  disappointed.  We  stated,  in  the  most 
respectful  language,  our  claims  to  their  interference ;  we  stated 
propositions  which  we  were  prepared  to  prove,  and  we  can  say,  noAV 
that  it  is  all  over,  neither  the  honorable  the  Common  Council,  nor 
the  adA^ocates  of  the  School  Society,  nor  the  reA^erend  advocates  of 
the  bigotry  of  one  sect,  and  the  ignorance  of  another,  dared  to  call 
in  question  the  truth  of  a  single  proposition  of  ours.  [Loud  cheers.] 
It  is  true  that  the  aldermen  of  this  city  haA^e,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
power  vested  in  them,  denied  us  our  rights,  but  we  are  triumphant 
over  them,  for  logic  and  truth  are  Avith  us.  [Cheers.]  Was  there 
a  single  inquiry  respecting  the  truth  of  our  alleged  grievances,  or 
any  attempt  to  redress  them?  But  the  Rev.  Dr.  Spi’ing,  and  the 
Rev,  Dr.  Bond,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bangs  and  company  [great  laugh¬ 
ter],  came  with  an  old  volume  of  antiquated  theology,  and  exclaimed, 
“  What  monstrous  people  these  Papists  are !”  The  Common  Council 
heard  them ;  and  instead  of  examining  the  facts  in  which  the 
rights  of  their  constituents  are  involved,  entered  on  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  abstract  theological  reasoning.  We  Avere  required  to  an¬ 
swer  Dr,  Spring ;  but  no,  a  reply  was  not  called  for  in  that  case, 
for  Avhen  a  minister  gives  utterance  to  a  dark-souled  sentiment,  un- 
Avorthy  of  a  Christian,  then  he  deserves  no  answer.  [Cheers.]  Eight 
or  nine  hours  were  Avasted  in  the  discussion  of  a  theological  tenet, 
but  not  one  half  hour  was  given  to  the  only  question  which  the 
Common  Council  should  have  permitted  to  come  before  them — ■ 
namely,  are  the  rights  of  this  portion  of  the  citizens  violated  or  not  ? 
If  so,  are  there  in  our  hands,  as  the  public  guardians  of  liberty,  the 
means  to  apply  a  remedy?  Just  and  impartial  judges  Avould  so 
have  stated  the  question,  and  have  discarded  all  theological  discus¬ 
sions.  [Cheers.] 

But  the  discussion  could  not  last  always ;  and  when  the  stock  of 
bigotry  was  exhausted,  we  Avere  permitted  to  retire,  and  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  three  were  appointed — for  what  purpose  ?  To  inquire 
Avhether  the  facts  of  our  documents  Avere  true?  No.  In  reality, 
from  the  Avording  of  the  resolution  appointing  the  committee,  it 
seemed  as  if  its  members  had  been  appointed  to  find  out  all  they 
could  in  favor  of  the  Public  School  Society ;  and,  accordingly,  they 
do  make  an  appeal — but  what  I  must  call  a  most  weak  and  pitiful 
appeal  in  favor  of  that  Society,  but  not  one  Avord  of  reference  to  the 
facts  that  Ave  had  submitted,  or  the  grievances  of  which  we  had 
complained.  [Cheers.]  The  ultimate  decision  of  that  Board  re¬ 
minded  me  of  a  story  I  once  heard  of  the  times  when,  in  Ireland, 
laAv  and  justice  Avere  set  at  open  defiance,  and  every  petty  tyrant 
had  the  right  to  trample  on  his  neighbor,  provided  he  himself  Avere 
the  minion  of  the  government.  A  poor  man  was  taken  up  by  one 
of  these  petty  despots,  and  cast  into  prison,  where  he  remained  for 
a  considerable  time,  ignorant  of  his  crime  and  his  destiny,  not 
knowing  Avhether  he  Avas  to  be  sent  to  the  gallows  or  the  convict- 


244 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ship.  But  after  a  month  or  so  of  suspense,  the  little  tyrant  came, 
and  marching  his  prisoner  to  the  door,  gave  him  a  push  and  kicked 
him  out,  when  the  poor  man,  finding  himself  abroad  and  at  liberty 
once  more,  turned  round  and  very  emphatically  said,  “  Thank  your 
honor  !”  [Laughter.]  The  aldermen  have  treated  you  somewhat 
similarly,  and  I  hope  you  will  all  say  with  becoming  gratitude,  noAV 
that  you  are  out  of  theii’  hands,  “  Thank  your  honors !”  [Loud 
laughter  and  cheers.] 

iviy  friends,  fortunately  all  our  Methodistical  friends  are  not  like 
Dr,  Bond,  and  all  the  Presbyterians  are  not  like  Dr.  Spring. 
[Cheers.]  There  is  a  general  sentiment  of  natural  rectitude  and 
justice,  by  which  a  man  is  led  to  “  do  to  his  neighbor  as  he  wishes 
nis  neighbor  to  do  unto  him,”  and  that  sentiment  is  gaining  ground, 
and  by  it  Ave  are  gaining  friends.  [Cheers.]  And  we  have  an  ap¬ 
peal  to  a  higher  poAver  than  the  Common  Council — to  the  Legisla¬ 
ture  of  the  State.  [Cheers.]  And  I  trust  it  Avill  be  found  that  the 
petty  array  of  bigotry,  which  influenced  the  Common  Coiincil,  can¬ 
not  overawe  the  Legislature.  [Loud  cheers.]  It^should  be  borne 
in  mind  that  the  aldermen  are  not  competent  judges  in  this  matter, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  ex-officio  tru._i;ees  or  members  of  the  Public 
School  Society.  They  are  like  the  Siamese  twins,  united  together 
[laughter],  and  jointly  they  form  a  monopoly  which  threatens  to 
mould  and  subjugate  the  minds  of  our  children  to  their  peculiar 
notions.  And  the  grieA^ances  of  this  case  do  nor  afllict  ais  alone — 
they  fall  equally  upon  other  religious  denominations — and  while  it 
is  the  Catholics  to-day,  it  may  be  Universalists,  or  the  JeAVS,  or  the 
Baptists,  or  the  Unitarians,  to-morroAV,  who  may  suflfer.  Nay, 
indeed,  they  already  sufier.  The  translation  of  the  Bible  au¬ 
thorized  by  King  James  I.  of  England,  and  used  in  the  public 
schools,  is  not  approved  of  by  the  Baptists,  or  at  least  a  por¬ 
tion  of  them,  neither  is  it  by  the  Unitarians;  and  as  for  us, 
we  have  an  old  translation  made  long  before  King  James  was 
heard  of.  [Cheers.]  Yet  oui’  opponents  insist  that  their  favorite 
version  alo)ie  shall  be  nsed.  Our  children,  too,  are  taught  the 
prayers  of  the  Protestant  Church,  and  Ave  have  heard  of  the  children 
of  these  schools  singing  Protestant  hymns  most  piously,  although 
the  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  say  nothing  of  it  in  their 
Report,  as  they  should  have  done.  Do  they  then  suppose  that  we 
Avill.  AAdthout  a  murmur,  contribute  to  the  support  of  such  a  system  ? 
[Cheers.]  No.  If  Ave  Avrong  them,  let  them  publish  their  confes¬ 
sion  of  faith — let  them  tell  us  the  exact  measure  of  the  Public  School 
religion  of  the  State  of  Ncav  York,  and  we  may  tell  them  hoAv  far 
we  can  conform  to  it.  Our  opponents  profess  to  be  the  friends  of 
general  tolerance  and  general  good  Avill ;  yet  they  foment  and 
engender  an  active  intolerance  that  scarcely  finds  a  parallel  in  the 
unjust  government  of  countries  notorious  for  acts  of  intolerance. 
[Cheers.] 

What,  then,  remains  for  us  to  do  ?  We  must  not  fold  our  arms 
and  rest.  W e  must  take  measures ;  and  for  myself  my  part  is  nearly 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


245 


accomplislied,  inasmuch  as  my  great  object  was  to  rouse  attention  . 
to  this  subject  amongst  the  people  for  whose  religion  I  am  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  extent  responsible,  that  no  admixture  of  error  shall  be  intro¬ 
duced  into  it  with  my  consent  and  approbation.  [Loud  cheers.] 

I  have  therefore  jiointed  out  the  character  of  these  public  schools, 
and  showed  that  Catholics  could  not  su2)portthem  without  violating 
their  consciences.  And  so  far  I  have  done  my  duty.  As  to  the 
civil  means  in  your  power  to  obtain  redress,  it  is  not  exactly  my 
place  to  jDoint  them  out.  Thank  God,  we  live  in  a  country  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  whose  government  provides  for  the  enjoyment  of  equal 
rights  by  all  ranks  and  denominations  of  citizens.  [Loud  cheers.] 
There  is  one  thing  with  which  our  opjionents  cannot  charge  us — 
that  is,  political  feeling  in  this  matter ;  and  I  can  defy  Mr.  Ketchum, 
with  all  his  acuteness,  to  point  to  a  single  act  of  ours  that  had  con¬ 
nection  with  party  jDolitics.  [Cheers.] 

Ours  is  a  case  of  a  deeper  and  more  imjiortant  character  than  any 
connected  with  transient  party  politics.  And  I  trust  that  no  such 
defeat  as  we  have  ex2)erienced — the  defeat  of  justice  by  authority — 
shall  make  you  give  u^i  your  jirincijiles.  Spread  it  abroad  that  you 
ask  no  favor — no  pre-eminence — no  boon  from  their  honors  of  the 
Common  Council,  but  that  you  have  rights  and  these  rights  you 
claim.  Let  them  reserve  their  favors  for  those  who  want  them. 
[Loud  cheers.]  This  is  the  ground  on  which  the  question  will  meet 
with  respect,  both  from  your  brethren  in  faith,  and  your  fellow- 
citizens  at  large.  This  is  a  question  of  right;  and  though  a  whole 
Board  should  be  found  to  bend  the  knee  to  the  Baal  of  bigotry,  men 
will  be  found  who  can  stand  unawed  in  its  presence,  and  do  right. 
[Loud  cheers.] 

Bishop  H.  here  entered  into  some  details  respecting  the  future 
jilan  of  ju’ocedure  which  the  meeting  should  adopt,  and  suggested 
the  apjjointment  of  committees,  as  was  afterwards  carried  into  elfect. 
He  then  concluded  :  I  have  said  all  that  is  imjiortant  for  me  to  state, 
and  I  have  no  disposition  to  review  the  ground  over  Avhich  we  have 
travelled.  I  may,  however,  congratulate  you  on  something  gained. 
The  false  ground  was  assumed  by  every  one  of  our  opponents  before 
the  Common  Council,  that  we  wanted  a  portion  of  the  jmblic  funds 
for  the  juuq^ose  of  jiromoting  the  Catholic  faith.  We  have  said  re¬ 
peatedly  and  explicitly  that  we  had  no  such  aim — that  our  schools 
would  be  sacred  to  secular  education.  But  notwithstanding  our 
solemn  assertions  to  the  contrary,  their  Reverences  took  it  into 
their  heads  that  such  were  our  objects,  and  on  that  false  position 
they  argued,  and  on  that  alone.  The  gentlemen,  too,  on  the  ojjpo- 
site  side,  asserted  that  their  books  were  free  from  sectarianism;  this 
assertion  Avas  incorporated  m  the  proceedings  and  the  report  of  the 
Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen  on  this  subject  last  spring,  but  they 
are  now  found  drawing  black  lines  over  their  books.  [Laughter 
and  cheers.]  That  is  something.  That  is  a  great  deal.  That  is  a 
great  move.  [Cheers.]  Because,  should  they  relieve  the  minds  of 
Protestant  youth  from  the  influence  of  the  bigotry  their  books  had 


246 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


previously  disseminated,  that  is  a  great  deal.  They  have  also  prom¬ 
ised  to  purify  their  libraries  ;  that  is  something  more.  And  though 
they  argue  on  the  false  ground  that  we  are  influenced  by  sectarian 
motives,  yet  the  honorable  men  of  the  city  w^ho  are  not  blinded  by 
the  narrow  and  bigoted  views  which  appear  to  jiredominate  in  the 
Common  Council  see  that  we  only  want  a  ho7m  fide  education  for 
our  children  ;  that  when  we  call  for  bread,  we  do  not  want  to  have 
a  stone  or  a  serpent  given  us  in  its  place.  [Cheers.]  In  conclusion 
I  will  remark,  that,  although  the  fiat  of  the  Board,  with  one  honor¬ 
able  exception  [cheers],  has  gone  against  us,  yet  they  have  not  made 
a  single  proposition  false  that  was  true,  nor  a  single  proposition 
true  that  was  false — justice  and  right  are  still  ours !  [Continued 
cheering.] 


Meeting  in  “Carroll  Hall,’’  March  30th,  1841. 

On  Tuesday  evening,  March  30th,  a  meeting  of  the  Catholics  of 
this  city  was  held  in  the  large  building  corner  of  Duane  street  and 
City  Hall  Place,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  the  rejiort  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  appointed  to  convey  the  petition  of  the  Catholics  of  New 
York,  on  the  subject  of  the  Common  School  Fund,  to  the  Legisla¬ 
ture  of  the  State.  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  was  unanimously  called 
to  the  chair.  The  chairman  then  informed  the  meeting  that  the 
petition  had  been  presented  to  the  Legislature,  after  having  received 
seven  thousand  signatures,  several  of  which  were  those  of  liberal 
Protestant  gentlemen.  Their  friend,  Mr.  Joseph  O’Connor,  who  had 
carried  the  petition  to  Albany,  was  exceedingly  well  received  there 
by  members  of  both  houses  of  the  Legislature.  The  principle  of 
placing  the  Common  School  F und  under  the  control  of  any  one  cor- 
})oi‘ate  body  had  been  strongly  disapproved.  That  they  had  gained 
much  in  public  opinion,  he  (the  Chairman)  had  no  doubt,  whether 
tliey  would  gain  all  he  did  not  know,  but  he  knew  the  Catholics  had 
done  something  towards  the  attainment  of  their  object,  and  he  fer¬ 
vently  trusted  that  they  would  ultimately  succeed.  [Cheers.] 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  then  rose,  and  was  received  with 
enthusiastic  applause.  On  its  subsidence,  he  spoke  as  follows :  The 
difliculty,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  of  seeing  at  the  same  time, 
tlie  diflereiit  members  of  the  committee  appointed  to  carry  the  reso¬ 
lutions  of  the  last  meeting  into  eflect,  prompted  me  without  any 
other  authority  to  direct  the  call  for  this  public  meeting.  I  had  no 
special  object  in  view,  at  least  no  prospective  one.  But  at  the  same 
I  did  not  wish  that  an  object  of  so  much  importance  should,  for  any 
great  length  of  time,  lie  buried  from  the  view  and  the  attention  of 
those  who  are  so  deeply  interested  in  it.  [Cheers.]  I  say  had  no 
prospective  object,  for  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  anything  specific  to 
be  proposed  in  relation  to  it  to-night.  We  have  got  into  that  posi¬ 
tion  in  which  we  must  wait.  Our  bark,  after  having  been  a  little 
bufietted  by  the  storm,  some  of  its  sail  tattered,  but  all  the  I'igging 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


247 


sound,  is  now  resting  in  calm  water,  and  if  this  meeting  had  any 
object,  it  was  simply  to  refit,  and  to  watch  the  signs  of  the  weather. 
[Loud  cheers.] 

The  gentlemen  who  had  been  charged  with  preparing  the  petition, 
have  reported  briefly  the  action  which  has  been  had  upon  it.  I 
believe  that  if  there  had  been  any  means  proposed  to  extend  the 
petition  more  widely  for  signatures,  instead  of  seven  there  would 
have  been  seven  and  twenty  thousand  names  appended  to  it.  But  it 
happens  unfortunately  for  us  that  there  are  amongst  us  very  few  who 
have  at  the  same  time  leisure  to  dispose  of,  and  the  disposition  to 
consecrate  it  to  that  purpose.  Consequently,  the  Committee  were 
obliged,  by  exertions  on  their  own  part,  to  circulate  that  petition  in 
the  best  manner  they  could.  It  was  to  me  matter  of  regret,  that 
the  petition  had  not  been  presented  long  before,  but,  certainly,  the 
Committee  did  all  that  depended  on  them  to  do  to  have  it  early  pre¬ 
sented,  and  having  done  so,  I  am  glad  and  happy  to  hear,  that  it  has 
been  well  received,  and  received  precisely  in  the  manner  which  we 
should  have  reason  to  anticipate  from  that  body  delegated  by  the 
people  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  be  the  guardians  and  protectors 
by  law,  of  the  common  rights  of  all.  [Cheers.]  It  will  indeed  be 
consoling  to  us — it  w'ill  be  an  assurance  against  future  contingencies 
— it  will  inspire  confidence,  if  it  be  found,  as  we  trust  it  will,  that 
in  that  body,  those  considerations  which  happily  belong  not  to  any 
secular  tribunal  in  this  country,  those  considerations  of  creeds,  of 
wdiich  such  a  dastardly  use  was  made  before  the  Common  Council, 
will  have  no  weight.  These  are  the  men  who  understand  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  country,  who  frame  laws  according  to  the  principles 
of  that  constitution — men  who  when  they  see  by  any  change,  or  by 
any  combination  of  circumstances  that  the  spirit  of  that  constitu¬ 
tion  is  violated,  are  appointed  ex-officio  to  stand  forth  as  the  guardi¬ 
ans  of  the  great  principles  of  the  charter  of  American  liberty. 
[Loud  cheers.]  I  trust  that  public  virtue  is  not  so  much  on  the 
wane,  that  men  filling  the  high  and  honorable  place  which  they  do, 
will  deem  it  expedient  to  lean  to  the  side  of  wrong,  when  they 
know  what  is  right.  And  it  is  from  these  considerations  that  a 
meeting  of  this  kind  brings  rather  pleasing  reflections.  But  suppos¬ 
ing  the  ease  were  not  so  encouraging,  and  let  me  caution  you  not 
to  be  too  sanguine,  for  if  the  serpent  found  his  way  into  the  bowei’s 
of  Eden,  who  shall  say  that  he  shall  not  find  his  way  into  the  halls 
of  legislation  ?  true,  we  have  no  such  fear,  but  still  let  me  say  that 
in  the  end  we  ourselves  must  stand  by  our  own  rights,  if  we  ex¬ 
pect  that  others  will  aid  us  in  preserving  and  maintaining  them. 
[Cheers.] 

Our  question  was  a  very  plain  and  simple  one  originally,  and  all 
the  sophistry,  and  all  the  bigotry,  and  all  the  quotations  from  anti¬ 
quated  works  of  theology,  did  not  change  its  aspect.  We  are  all 
members  of  the  great  family  of  this  community,  and  have  the  same 
right  to  follow  the  dictates  of  our  conscience  as  we  grant  to  our 
neighbors,  .and  which  they  should  grant  to  us.  A  commimity  of 


248 


ARcnuisnop  hughes. 


feeling  is  created  by  the  common  wants  of  all,  but  our  opponents, 
instead  of  a  benefit,  would  turn  this  into  an  injury.  They  claim  the 
exclusive  right  of  appropriating  as  they  please,  that  which  results 
from  the  contributions  of  every  man — Catholic,  Methodist,  Protes¬ 
tant,  Presbyterian,  and  all.  That  when  it  is  amassed,  it  shall  be 
dealt  out  in  mental  nutriment,  just  such  as  they  prescribe,  whether 
palatable  to  us  or  not.  We  tell  them  of  the  injustice  of  this — that 
the  education  which  might  be  proper  and  perfectly  lawful  for  Protes¬ 
tant  children,  might  be  very  injurious  for  Catholic  children— that  if 
they  are  pleased  with  the  system  to  keep  it,  and  that  then,  in  the 
exercise  of  an  authority  vested  in  the  corporation  of  this  city,  schools 
complying  with  the  requirements  of  the  law,  doing  those  things  for 
which  this  money  was  contributed,  but  freed  from  these  noxious 
pi’inciples,  shall  be  designated,  and  that  a  portion  not  of  their  money, 
but  the  portion  that  may  justly  be  supposed  to  belong  to  us,  shall  be 
set  apart  for  the  support  of  these  schools.  We  make  no  claim  but 
such  as  any  other  denomination  might  with  equal  justice  and  pro¬ 
priety  prefer.  We  want  our  children,  whilst  receiving  the  elements 
of  education  in  the  schools,  to  be  freed  from  the  poisonous  influence 
of  sectarianism.  [Cheers.] 

What  I  said  before,  I  repeat  now,  that  we  advanced  not  a  single 
proposition,  of  which  we  did  not  lay  the  proofs  before  their  Honors  ; 
and  that  in  the  whole  course  of  the  discussion,  not  a  single  solitary 
proposition  of  ours  was  disproved  by  the  men  who  arrayed  them¬ 
selves  in  opposition  to  our  claims.  [Loud  cheers.]  The  fact  is  they 
did  not  pretend  to  disprove  them — they  did  not  think  it  worth  their 
while — they  said,  “  You  believe  in  the  Council  of  Trent” — but  did 
that  overturn  our  arguments  ?  Not  one  solitary  statement  of  ours 
was  distui'bed.  So  far  from  that,  the  committee  did  not  bring  for¬ 
ward  anything  that  was  not  w'ell  known  before.  They  reported  that 
the  school  houses  were  all  nearly  of  the  same  size,  and  built  alike 
[laughter],  and  that  they  found  good  order  there.  But  there  were 
other  things  of  which  they  said  nothing — they  did  not  report  that 
they  found  the  children  all  singing  hymns  that  certainly  had  not  the 
approbation  of  the  Council  of  Trent  [laughter],  and  repeating  the 
Lord’s  Prayer,  wdth  those  additions  which  Protestants  make,  but 
we  do  not.  They  said  these  were  very  beautiful  things,  and  could  do 
no  harm.  But  tlien  when  the  Catholic  mother  teaches  her  child  the 
Lord’s  Prayer,  and  the  child  finds  another  form  at  school,  and  comes 
home  and  asks  its  mother  how  all  that  happens — of  that  we  com¬ 
plain.  We  hold  that  such  meddling  is  improper,  and  we  only  de¬ 
mand  what  is  reasonable  and  just,  and  we  challenged  them  to  point 
to  anything  unreasonable  in  our  demands,  promising  that  we  would 
correct  it,  and  decline  entirely  pressing  any  such  claim.  But  there 
was  nothing  of  the  kind — our  statements  were  not  denied.  No  man 
presumed  to  say  that  our  claims  were  unjust,  and  yet  you  know 
their  decision.  That  decision  has  tlirown  us  on  a  course  w'hich  we 
trust  will  lead  to  an  improvement  of  the  system.  It  was  a  formula 
prescribed  by  the  Common  Council,  and  it  was  right  that  to  them 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


24& 


we  sliould  raake  oiu  first  appeal.  But  they  have  transferred  from 
themselves  to  a  higher  tribunal,  the  responsibility  of  doing  us  jus¬ 
tice,  and  we  have  applied  to  that  tribunal  with  brigliter  hopes  and 
more  unclouded  prospects.  [Cheers.]  If  we  do  not  succeed  next 
session,  then  we  must  keep  our  minds  directed  to  the  next  session, 
and  if  not  successful,  then  to  the  next  again.  [Laughter  and  cheers.] 
If  you  were  to  fall  back  like  the  sluggard  on  his  pillow,  because  at 
first  a  little  difficulty  occurs,  in  every  future  attempt  you  would  be 
alike  unsuccessful.  It  would  be  said  that  you  wanted  spirit — that 
you  made  a  great  noise  for  a  little,  and  then  all  was  over.  No ! 
Understanding  the  question — its  bearings  on  your  rights  as  citizens 
— as  men  having  consciences  that  are  inviolable — with  a  proper  un¬ 
derstanding  of  these  things,  you  must  persevere.  Stand  by  justice. 
Prefer  your  claims,  and  sooner  or  later  you  will  gain  the  ears  and 
good  will  of  those  who  have  the  power  and  the  ability  to  redress 
your  grievances.  [Cheers.] 

But  there  is  another  view  of  the  subject,  or  rather  a  view  result¬ 
ing  from  the  state  of  things,  which  it  is  certainly  my  disposition  to 
press  much  on  your  attention,  that  is,  that  having  found  that  the 
schools  provided  at  the  public  expense  are  not  a  source  of  benefit  to 
you  and  your  children,  that  you  take  care  that  your  children  shall 
not  be  left  to  ignorance — on  the  contrary,  every  jiarent  will  exert 
himself  so  that  your  poor  children  shall  not  lose  their  time — that 
they  shall  be  adding  in  the  best  possible  way  to  that  knowledge  that 
is  to  be  useful  to  them  in  after  life.  We  must  then  look  forward  to 
the  organization  of  schools,  and  what  is  more,  if  they  force  it  upon 
us,  we  must  look  forward  to  the  expurgation  of  books.  So  that  if 
we  are  ultimately  obliged  to  educate  Catholic  children  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  second  taxation — that  is,  when  they  first  take  our  taxes 
and  transfer  them  to  an  irresponsible  corporation  that  uses  them  not 
for  our  benefit,  and  only  return  them  in  the  way  that  injures  us,  we 
must  have  a  second  recourse  to  our  purses — then,  indeed,  we  shall 
study  that  ours  will  be  a  thorough  education,  and  a  thorough  Cath¬ 
olic  education.  [Cheers.] 

In  point  of  value  the  whole  amount  of  this  taxation  is  exceedingly 
insignificant,  only  at  the  rate  of  one-eightieth  of  one  per  cent,  so  that 
an  individual  rated  at  $10,000,  pays  to  this  fund  only  about  fifty 
cents.  Now  we  know  a  great  many  men  among  the  Catholics  that 
could  rate  at  $10,000.  In  that  way,  a  man  owning  property  to  that 
amount,  has  to  pay  only  fifty  cents ;  yet  from  these  small  sums  a 
very  considerable  amount  is  raised.  Thus,  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  not 
the  amount  of  money  with  which  we  have  to  do,  but  it  is  with  the 
tampering  with  a  principle  against  which  every  honest  mati  of  every 
creed  should  raise  his  indignant  voice.  [Cheers.]  If  I  see,  in  this 
country,  a  Jew  oppressed  because  he  is  a  Jew,  though  I  have  no 
sympathy  with  his  religion,  I  feel  sympathy  with  his  rights,  for  there 
there  is  a  principle  involved  which  closely  concerns  myself.  And 
if  the  citizens  permit  the  Jew  to  be  trampled  on  to-day,  the  next 
weak  denomination  m.ayfall  a  victim  to-morrow,  and  so  on,  till  there 


250 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


be  only  one  dominant  denomination,  ruling  over,  and  trafficking  in 
the  rights  of  all  other  denominations.  [Cheers.]  On  these  grounds 
is  this  question  important,  as  well  as  because  it  is  an  imperative  duty, 
incumbent  upon  you  and  me,  to  see  that  no  principle  of  religion 
of  which  we  do  not  approve  shall  be  fixed  in  the  minds  of  our 
children.  The  account  of  this  Is  not  of  this  world,  and  under  the 
sense  of  this  solemn  duty,  I  felt  called  on  to  mingle  with  you  in  the 
agitation  of  this  question,  and  direct  your  attention  to  it  till  you 
should  understand  it,  and  be  prepared  to  act  on  it,  in  conjunction 
with  that  duty  which  you  and  I  are  alike  bound  to  discharge. 
[Cheers.] 

I  do  not  know  that  I  have  anything  more  of  interest  or  worthy 
your  attention  to  present  on  the  subject.  It  has  often  been  discussed, 
and  I  presume  is  now  perfectly  understood.  But  this  one  thing  I 
would  impress  upon  yon,  that  wherever  religion  is  concerned,  it 
comes  before  all  other  concerns — that  is  to  say,  the  duty  that  a  man 
owes  to  his  conscience  and  his  God ;  and  the  order  of  obligation  is 
first  to  God,  and  then  to  our  conscience — after  God  to  our  con¬ 
science,  before  our  parents  or  families,  that  is  the  order ;  and  there¬ 
fore  I  should  think  it  a  perversion  of  that  order,  if  any  man,  for 
sake  of  that  expediency  on  which  we  look  with  such  contempt  as 
ruling  in  a  hall  not  far  distant  [laughter],  should  sacrifice  his  duty 
to  his  God,  for  sake  of  what  he  regards  as  a  little  advantage  on  his  side. 

If,  after  all,  my  friends,  the  question  be  overruled  and  no  remedy 
left  us,  then  submission  will  be  our  duty — but  it  will  be  a  glorious 
submission.  [Cheers.]  Every  just — every  honorable — every  fair 
means  should  be  adojjted  and  persevered  in  steadily,  and  firmly,  un¬ 
til  your  rights  be  recognized  and  secured  if  it  be  possible.  [Loud 
cheers.]  Perhaps  there  are  other  gentlemen  present,  particularly 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  who  was  not  present  some  time  ago, 
who  could  interest  you  more  especially  in  regard  to  recent  occur¬ 
rences.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  everywhere  there  is 
the  same  unanimity  of  feeling  that  our  grievances  should  be  re¬ 
moved,  and  what  is  more,  that  each  one  so  expressing  himself  was 
ready  to  aid  us  in  obtaining  redress.  That  is  consoling,  for  that 
shows  a  very  difierent  state  of  things  to  that  which  presented  itself 
to  me  when  I  first  returned  from  Europe.  Then,  those  who  under¬ 
stood  the  subject  were  few.  Nothing  but  a  proper  iinderstanding 
of  tlie  subject  was  wanting ;  but  by  discussion,  and  meetings,  and  so 
forth,  that  knowledge  has  spread  from  the  centre  to  the  circumfer¬ 
ence  of  our  people.  Our  people  now  begin  to  understand  that 
insidiously,  and,  as  it  were,  drop  by  drop,  this  system  was  going  on, 
tendino-  to  wean  the  affections  of  their  children  from  that  religion 
for  which  their  jjarents  had  suffered  so  much.  [Cheers.]  They 
understand  this^  and  therefore  I  cannot  but  congratulate  you  on  the 
improved  condition  of  public  feeling  in  relation  to  this  matter. 
Elsewhere  we  have  made  many  friends — and  let  me  tell  you,  by  way 
of  a  secret,  that  some  who  once  opposed  us  have  acknowledged  that 
we  are  right.  [Loud  cheers.] 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


251 


"We  liave  to  wait  then  till  we  know  the  issue  of  our  respectful 
•petition  to  the  Legislature  at  Albany.  I  have  every  reason  to 
believe  tliat  it  will  be  attended  to.  There  is  nothing  in  that  petition 
which  can  shock  the  prejudices  of  any  man  or  class  of  men.  There 
is  the  statement  of  a  grievance,  and  in  all  civilized  countries 
wherever  there  is  a  grievance  that  can  be  corrected  without  entail¬ 
ing  a  greater  grievance,  a  remedy  will  be  applied.  Inisuch  a  state 
of  confidence  then  let  us  wait  patiently.  Nevertheless  the  principle 
involved  in  the  case  must  be  kept  present  in  every  man’s  mind — 
must  be  the  guide  and  rule  of  his  action  and  expression  of  his  opin¬ 
ion  in  reference  to  this  matter.  Otherwise  you  may  be  assured  that 
the  great  influence  of  the  Public  School  Society,  and  a  very  great 
influence  it  is,  extending  its  fibres  like  those  of  the  ivy  around  the  oak 
of  authority  amongst  you,  will  prevail  against  you.  But  persevering 
in  your  efforts  with  the  same  firmness,  and  calmness,  and  determ¬ 
ination  which  has  hitherto  marked  our  struggle,  my  word  for  it,  you 
must  succeed!  [Loud  cheers.] 

The  meeting  was  then  addressed  by  other  speakers,  who  having 
referred  to  political  afiairs  the  Right  Reverend  Bishop  Hughes 
arose  and  said : — When  I  returned  from  Europe,  the  very  first  thing 
I  did  when  attending  a  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  directing  atten¬ 
tion  to  this  question,  was  to  take  measures  that  all  politics  should 
he  excluded ;  and  in  the  prosecution  of  the  question  up  till  this 
time,  I  have  the  pleasure  and  the  pride  to  say  that  no  politics  have 
been  introduced.  We  have  attended  meetings  under  St.  James’s 
Church  and  elsewhere,  and  have  not  heard  a  syllable  that  I  did  con¬ 
ceive  to  be  political  in  the  remotest  degree.  And  the  moment 
politics  are  introduced,  that  moment  I  disappear  from  this  meeting. 
I  knew,  indeed,  that  that  had  been  the  firebrand  cast  amongst  those 
who  first  met  for  the  purpose  of  prosecuting  these  claims,  and 
therefore  knowing  it  to  be  a  firebrand,  I  felt  it  to  be  my  first  duty 
to  extinguish  it  ;  and  it  was  extinguished.  Now  the  question 
has  been  agitated  to-night,  and  certainly,  though  for  myself  I  did 
not  hear  with  pleasure  one  observation  of  the  learned  doctor,  yet  I 
did  not  at  ail  understand  him  as  introducing  politics.  I  may  not 
understand  the  hidden  meanings  of  words,  and  not  being  familiar 
i  with  the  subject  may  have  a  mistaken  impression  ;  but  I  under¬ 
stood  the  Doctor  to  have  expressed  what  I  believe  to  be  a  self- 
evident  proposition,  that  if  I  appoint  a  man  to  provide  for  the  public 
table,  and  he  sets  on  it  what  I  cannot  eat,  that  then  my  duty  is  to 
withhold  from  him  my  future  support.  Now  I  agree  most  decidedly 
in  saying  that  politics  must  not  be  introduced,  first,  for  the  perhaps 
insignificant  reason  that  if  they  be  introduced  I  disappear  from 
amongst  you,  and  secondly  for  the  very  important  one,  that  your 
prospects  would  thereby  be  defeated. 

N evertheless,  without  being  at  all  connected  with  politics,  yet  if  a 
man  appointed  to  supply  the  [)ublic  table  with  food  does  not  do  so, 
I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  displace  him,  simply  because  he  does  not 
do  me  justice.  That  I  do  not  call  politics.  But  I  conceive  that  any 

I 

I 


1 


252 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


man  who  will  conspire  with  the  man  who  deprives  him  of  his  rights, 
deserves  to  be  so  deprived  of  them.  If  you  have  any  regard,  theil, 
for  my  feelings  or  your  own  interests,  do  not  introduce  politics. 
We  do  not  meet  for  political  purposes.  I  defy  our  enemies  or  our 
friends  to  shew  that  one  word  of  politics  was  ever  tolerated  in  our 
meetings.  Occasionally  an  unguarded  expression  might  escape,  but 
I  never  could  nor  did  attach  any  importance  to  it.  So  whilst  I  feel 
on  the  one  side  that  the  Doctor  has  not  introduced  politics,  I 
argue  most  decidedly  in  the  proiiriety  of  the  remarks  made  by  the 
last  speaker,  so  far  as  they  went,  to  exclude  politics.  I  trust,  there¬ 
fore,  that  it  will  be  after  I  have  received  notice  to  retire,  that  politics 
will  be  introduced. 

I  have  been  accused  of  politics.  But  my  politics  are  to  do  my 
duty,  imperfectly,  I  know,  but  in  the  hope  that  by  doing  it  I  may 
have  some  claim  to  the  mercy  of  my  God  in  another  life.  Part  of 
my  duty,  I  felt  under  that  sense  of  obligation,  was  to  jirotect  from 
contamination  the  minds  of  the  children  of  the  people  committed  to 
my  care — to  guard  their  faith  with  the  guardianship  devolved  upon 
me  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  in  furtherance  of  that  object,  I 
attend  this  meeting. 

I  believe  that  amongst  both  political  parties,  there  are  good  and 
very  bad  men,  and  I  look  upon  both  from  the  neutral  ground.  With 
you  it  is  different,  and  whilst  it  is  your  privilege  to  have  your  polit¬ 
ical  feelings,  and  to  exercise  your  political  rights  with  modesty  and 
discretion,  and  mindful  of  the  estimation  in  which  you  would  be 
held  by  your  fellow-citizen,  here  at  least  there  must  be  no  introduc¬ 
tion  of  the  subject.  Hoping  that  my  remarks  will  be  received  with 
kindness,  and  prevent  any  reference  to  these  topics  in  future,  I  sit 
down.  [The  Right  Reverend  gentleman  resumed  his  seat  amid 
loud  and  continued  applause.] 

The  Chairman  then  remarked,  that  although  he  was  precluded 
from  engaging  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  before  the  meeting, 
yet  he  would  say  a  few  words  in  reference  to  the  matter  which  had 
just  been  incidentally  introduced.  He  felt  that  all  agreed  in  the 
wisdom  of  the  remarks  made  by  the  Right  Reverend  speaker,  who 
last  addressed  the  meeting  ;  and  indeed  there  was  an  absolute 
impossibility  that  politics  could  mingle  this  question.  Why  ?  Be¬ 
cause  when  a  Catholic  goes  to  the  poll,  and  finds  two  candidates, 
one  calling  himself  a  Locofoco  and  the  other  calling  himself  a  Whig, 
and  he  inquires  which  party  voted  against  the  Catholic  claims,  the 
answer  will  be — both  parties  voted  against  you.  How,  then,  in  the 
name  of  common  sense,  could  politics  be  introduced?  [Loud 
cheers.]  He  was  glad  that  the  Catholic  claim  had  been  transferred 
from  those  in  immediate  contact  with  the  Public  School  Society  to 
those  who  were  further  removed,  and  therefore  the  more  likely  to 
do  justice.  From  the  Legislature,  justice  might  begot;  but  from 
their  enemies  at  home,  whether  Whig  or  Locofoco,  none  was  to  be 
expected.  [Cheers.] 

The  Right  Reverend  Bishop  Hughes  again  rose  and  said  — Amotion 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


253 


for  the  adjournment  of  the  meeting  is  in  preparation,  but  I  had  in¬ 
tended  to  have  introduced  to  your  notice  some  other  matter  not 
connected  with  the  question  immediately  before  you,  but  very  closely 
connected  with  the  interests  of  the  Catholic  religion  in  this  city. 
However,  I  shall  postpone  it  till  some  other  opportunity,  and  proba¬ 
bly  it  will  be  better  to  call  a  meeting  for  that  specific  purpose. 
Time,  at  present,  will  not  permit  me  to  develop  at  any  length  the 
state  of  some  matters  connected  with  the  Catholic  churches  of  this 
city.  Many  of  them  are  in  a  very  embarrassed  condition,  and  since 
I  have  been  absent,  a  thing  perhaps  unprecedented  in  this  Diocese 
has  occurred,  two  of  our  churches  have  been  entered  by  the  sheriff, 
and  sold  for  small  sums,  but  of  course  with  the  prospect  of  being 
regained.  But  this  should  operate  as  a  warning  in  reference  to  the 
churches  we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  frequenting.  My  purpose, 
which  I  shall  explain  at  another  time,  will  be  to  unite  the  Catholics 
of  this  city,  under  some  organization  in  a  peculiar  manner,  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  means  by  a  general  contribution  to  diminish  the 
capital  of  the  debt  on  the  churches.  And  when  I  speak  of  this,  it  is 
to  be  observed,  at  the  same  time,  that  in  doing  this  the  Catholics 
will  be  only  doing  in  another  form  what  they  will  be  obliged  to  do 
if  they  leave  this  undone.  As  it  is,  we  are  paying  an  enormous  sum 
for  interest.  Now,  the  support  of  the  churches  and  the  payment 
of  this  interest,  devolve  principally  upon  a  certain  number  of  Catholics 
who  are  more  prominent  and  better  known.  Sometimes  it  reaches 
somewhat  into  the  people  at  large,  but  generally  the  burden  falls  on 
a  particular  class.  And  there  is  recourse  to  foirs  and  concerts,  and 
different  things  of  which  I  would  not  approve,  nor  tolerate  were  it 
not  for  the  necessity  of  the  case.  But  every  expedient  is  employed 
to  put  off  and  beat  off  the  last  hour  which  must  come  upon  churches 
as  well  as  on  every  thing  else  that  is  hypothecated — mortgaged. 
All  this  must  be  calculated  rather  to  depress  than  inspire  with  hope. 
Nevertheless,  in  a  little  time,  it  could  be  shown  that  great  as  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  churches,  if  only  fortunate  enough  to  combine 
into  one  the  energies  of  our  clergy  and  the  people  themselves,  it 
Avould  be  the  easiest  thing  in  the  course  of  three,  or  at  most  four 
years,  to  extinguish  the  debt,  or  so  diminish  it  as  not  to  be  felt.  In 
so  doing  you  would  at  once  secure  your  churches  in  the  service  of 
the  God  to  whom  they  have  been  consecrated,  and  remove  the  debt 
wliich  operates  as  an  incubus  on  the  further  development  of  our 
church  in  this  community.  The  exertions  that  are  necessary  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  the  everlasting  drain  for  interest,  etc.,  should  bring  the  mat¬ 
ter  home  to  the  means  and  zeal  of  every  man  and  woman  Avho  have 
zeal  for  their  religion.  All  should  unite  in  the  establishment  of  a 
fund,  to  be  at  stated  periods,  and  under  proper  management,  dis¬ 
tributed  to  the  churches,  on  conditions  that  will  make  it  effectual  in 
attaining  our  object.  In  the  meantime,  I  shall  endeavor  to  mature 
a  plan  to  effect  this,  and  present  it  to  you  on  a  future  occasion. 
[Loud  cheers.] 


4 


254 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


1 


Meeting  in  “  Carroll  Hall,”  April  20,  1841. 

Oh  Tuesday  evening  April  20,  a  numerous  and  respectable  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Catholics  of  this  city  was  held  in  the  large  building  corner 
of  Duane  street  and  City  Hall  Place.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Mullen, 
Thos.  O’Cokhor,  Esq., was  unanimously  called  to  the  chair.  Messrs. 
B.  O’CoHHOR  and  Johh  Quihh  were  appointed  secretaries  of  the 
meeting. 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  then  arose  and  was  received  with 
loud  and  continued  applause.  He  spoke  as  follows  ; — Gentlemen, 
it  has  no  doubt  been  anticipated  that  you  should  receive  some  news 
respecting  the  progress  of  the  question  in  which  we  are  all  so  much 
interested.  Circumstances,  however,  have  rendered  the  result  dif¬ 
ferent  from  what  might  have  been  anticipated,  and  as  yet  it  appears 
that  there  is  nothing  to  be  reported  on  the  subject.  However,  it  is 
still  of  the  greatest  importance  that  we  should  keep  sight  of  that 
question — that  we  should  have  it  present  to  our  minds,  for  the  more 
it  is  reflected  upon,  the  more  any  sensible  man  wdl  be  convinced 
that  if  we  believe  in  the  truth  of  our  religion — and  I  trust  we 
would  not  profess  it  if  we  did  not  believe  it — that  it  is  one  of  the 
most  vitally  important  questions  that  can. possible  engage  our  atten¬ 
tion.  The  importance  of  that  question  has  been  frequently  dis¬ 
cussed,  and  it  is  one  which  has  been  viewed  not  by  us  alone,  for  there 
is  a  zeal  which  goes  directly  counter  to  ours.  We  are  zealous  to 
preserve  our  children  in  that  religion  which  we  believe  to  be  true, 
and  in  which  we  ourselves  hope  for  salvation ;  and  others  are 
exceedingly  zealous  that,  for  their  good  no  doubt,  our  children 
should  be  seduced,  under  the  plea  of  education,  from  adherence  to 
that  religion.  And  thus  the  question  stands.  The  whole  pretence 
on  the  part  of  the  opposition  was  pretence  of  friendsliip  for  educa¬ 
tion — a  zeal  that  all  might  be  educated  on  that  broad  and  liberal 
system  which  wishes  to  have  religion  without  any  articles  of  faith. 
Nevertheless,  from  time  to  time  the  true  views  which  actuated  those 
who  are  most  zealous  in  opposing  our  claims  became  manifest ;  and 
but  yesterday  my  attention  was  called  to  an  article  in  a  sectarian 
jiaper  bearing  on  the  subject  and  going  to  show  to  its  very  large  cata¬ 
logue  of  subscribers  that  we  are  the  enemies  of  education,  that  we 
love  darkness  and  dread  light,  and  that  therefore  we  are  exceedingly 
solicitous  lest  the  Catholic  children  basking  in  the  light  which  tlie 
Common  Schools  furnisli  should  see  the  error  of  the  ways  of  their 
fathers,  and  therefore  abandon  them  ! — And  they  go  on  to  say  that  it 
is  impossible  for  the  Catholic  children  of  Catholic  parents,  born  in  this 
country,  to  profess  the  religion  of  their  parents  if  they  are  allowed 
those  advantages,  and  that  it  is  on  that  account  that  we  are  so 
solicitous  to  withdraw  them  from  the  Public  Schools.  But  they  go 
still  farther,  and  make  a  very  nice  calculation  respecting  the  chil¬ 
dren,  the  result  of  which  is,  that  by^the  working  of  this  system 
luring  tlie  past,  and,  not  including  the  results  to  be  anticipated  from 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIGIsr. 


255 


tlie  future,  out  of  every  twenty  children,  fifteen  will  become  Protes¬ 
tants  ;  or,  what  is  nearly  as  good,  will  cease  to  be  Catholic  !  When 
that  is  the  view  which  they  take  of  it,  and  when  we  know  the 
working  of  the  system,  then  is  the  importance  of  the  subject  increas¬ 
ed,  and  whatever  may  be  the  result  of  our  application  for  our  por¬ 
tion  of  that  money  which  we  contribute  for  the  benefit  of  education 
without  these  enroachment  on  religions  freedom — whatever  may  be 
the  result  of  that — one  great  advantage  has  been  gained,  that  the 
attention  of  parents  has  been  called  emphatically  to  the  subject. 
Now  we  do  not  enter  into  the  question,  what  is  the  amount  of  their 
education,  but  the  matter  is  an  exceedingly  simple  one,  and  it  is 
good  for  us,  and  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  may  be  disposed  to 
report  fairly  what  they  hear,  to  commence  by  stating  the  question. 
The  question  between  us  and  our  fellow-citizens,  is  as  one  between 
two,  or,  if  you  please,  three  individuals.  Two  agreeing  in  religious 
sentiments,  and  the  third  disagreeing,  and  the  two  come  to  the  third 
and  say,  “  You  must  pay  a  portion  of  money  for  the  education  of 
the  children  of  the  three  of  us,  and  we  wull  shape  the  education  to 
suit  the  views  which  we  entertain,  and  you  must  submit.”  The 
third  says,  “No!  I  would  prefer  to  keep  my  own  portion  and 
superintend  the  education  of  my  own  children  ;  because  in  this 
country  religious  rights  are  secured,  and  when  you  frame  a  system 
for  your  children  and  compel  me  to  support  it,  although  I  disagree 
with  you  in  religious  principles,  you  do  me  injustice ;  you  are  to  be 
sure  two  against  one,  and  you  may  decide  against  me  by  your 
majority,  but  nevertlieless  you  violate  justice.”  And  what  is  said  of 
the  Catholic  applies  with  equal  force  and  justice  to  any  other  religion. 
Because  every  man  has  graiited  unto  him  by  the  laws — the  happy 
laws  of  this  country — the  right  of  worshipping  God  according  to  the 
dictates,  of  his  conscience.  Tliis  is  the  true  statement  of  the  ques¬ 
tion — for,  argue  it,  mystify  it  as  you  please,  it  comes  down  to  this 
simple  matter-of-fact  illustration.  We  never  wanted  their  money, 
and  e\'en  if  we  wanted  our  own,  it  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  teach¬ 
ing  religion,  but  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  education  without 
anti-Catholicity.  And  they  contend,  manfully  contend,  that  educa¬ 
tion  such  as  they  ])rescribe  shall  be  given,  and  impregnated  with 
that  leaven,  simple  as  it  may  be,  but  yet  enough  to  corrupt  the 
W'hole  mass.  (Loud  cheers.)  This  experiment  of  the  past,  gentlemen, 
I  shoiild  think  quite  sufficient  to  admonish  the  Catholic  body  of  New 
York  to  take  measures  for  the  future.  And  whether  the  State 
allows  our  claim  or  not,  we  should  remember  that  we  are  able 
and  bound  to  provide  for  the  education  of  our  children.  This  is 
but  what  we  have  been  doing  for  years.  We  have  voluntarily 
undergone  that  expense — but  it  has  been  done  by  isolated  efforts, 
sometimes  not  very  successful,  and  not  most  advantageous  for  the 
children. 

All  that  we  want  now  is,  that  the  Catholic  parents  should  understand 
this  question.  We  have  another  deficiency  which  will,  I  trust,  soon 
be  supplied — that  is,  want  of  teachers.  For  though  we  have  in 


256 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


many  cases  excellent  teacners,  yet  often  we  are  obliged  to  take  them 
as  they  offer,  and  sometimes  though  not  altogether  competent,  on 
account  of  our  want  of  proper  means.  When  in  Ireland  last  sum¬ 
mer,  among  other  objects  of  curiosity,  I  visited  one  of  the  schools 
conducted  by  a  society  of  young  men,  who  had  associated  them¬ 
selves  voluntarily,  and  devoted  their  lives,  and  talents,  and  acquire¬ 
ments,  which  are  sometimes  of  a  very  high  order,  to  supply  that 
education  of  which  the  tyrannical  government  of  Britain  tried  to 
deprive  the  Irish  people.  [Loud  cheers.]  They  looked  for  no  rec¬ 
ompense — they  feel  that  it  is — and  especially  in  that  unfortunate 
country — a  great  work  of  mercy,  to  supply  by  the  devotion  of  their 
time  and  talents  that  which  should  have  been  provided  for  by  the 
zeal  of  their  goverement.  I  was  present  at  an  examination  there, 
and  in  all  the  examinations  that  ever  I  have  witnessed,  I  never  saw 
one  more  calculated  to  give  satisfaction.  Everything  is  systema¬ 
tized  by  them.  Their  Superior  and  leading  members  have  directed 
their  attention  to  every  improvement  in  the  science — the  profound 
science,  of  imparting  knowledge  to  the  young  mind,  and  every  prac¬ 
tical  and  sound  improvement  has  been  adopted  by  them.  And  such 
order — such  facility  in  going  through  that  examination  with  the 
least  loss  of  time,  I  have  not  seen  in  any  other  establishment  at  any 
time  or  place.  The  pupils'  appeared  to  be  themselves  perfectly  mas¬ 
ters  of  the  subjects  on  which  they  were  examined.  Geography,  and 
history,  and  several  other  branches  of  education  were  treated  of,  and 
in  all  they  appeared  to  be  perfectly  at  home. 

My  intention  is  to  send  to  Ireland,  and  that  within  three  weeks 
for  as  many  members  of  this  excellent  community  as  I  can  find  wil 
ling  to  devote  themselves  to  the  education  of  the  whole  Catholic 
children  of  New  York.  [Loud  and  continued  applause.]  Before  two 
weeks,  I  trust  that  a  j)erson  duly  authorized  to  make  that  applica¬ 
tion  will  be  on  his  way,  and  I  hope  also,  from  the  encouragement 
that  I  have  to  cherish  that  hope,  that,  within  four  or  five  months,  i 
sufficient  number  will  be  here  to  commence.  They  may  not — fo 
they  are  very  much  in  demand  where  they  are — ^be  able  to  send  as 
many  as  will  suffice,  but  at  all  events  they  will  send  enough  to  en 
graft  their  imi^roved  and  excellent  system  on  such  others  here  as 
may  be  disposed  and  otherwise  qualified  to  assume  the  office  of 
t.eachers.  And  the  support  of  these  “Brothers  of  the  Christian 
Doctrine,”  as  they  are  termed,  will  not  equal  that  which  the  Catho¬ 
lics  have  been  paying  from  year  to  year  in  addition  to  their  taxation 
— for  tliese  Brethren  accept  of  nothing  but  food  and  clothing. 

Now  I  conceive  that  in  this  way  we  will  be  enabled  to  supply  the 
great  want  of  which  I  have  spoken.  In  this  way  we  will  bring  the 
many  hundreds  of  children  of  poor  parents  under  the  salutary  disci¬ 
pline  of  education  and  religion ;  and  at  all  events  if  we  are  obliged 
to  teach  our  children  at  the  expense  of  a  second  taxation,  we  will 
be  free  to  bring  them  up  in  the  Christian  religion,  and  even  in  the 
Catholic  faith.  [Loud  cheers.]  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  whole  Cath¬ 
olic  body  in  New  York  will  regard  the  arrival  of  these  men  for  this 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


257 


purpose,  as  a  public  blessing  ;  and  I  have  not  the  least  doubt  that  in 
the  course  of  five  or  six  years,  any  who  at  first  may  have  doubted, 
will  be  convinced  that  for  them  and  their  children  the  arrival  of  these 
Brethren  was  indeed  a  public  blessing.  [Cheers.] 

x\s  we  are  here  assembled,  I  may  as  well  direct  your  attention  for 
a  few  minutes  to  some  topics  having  very  important  reference  to  the 
interest  of  the  Catholic  community.  Our  misfortune  heretofore  has 
been  that  we  have  not  been  united — that  is,  united  on  a  large  and 
comprehensive  basis,  for  the  promotion  of  our  true  interests.  Efforts 
here  and  there,  have  been  continually  made,  but  there  has  not  ap¬ 
peared  to  be  a  general  sjiirit  of  co-operation  and  unity  of  action,  by 
which  we,  like  other  denominations,  should  promote  our  interests  as 
a  religious  community.  I  regret  that  either  the  imperfect  notice  of 
this  meeting,  or  the  inclemency  of  the  weather,  or  both  causes  com¬ 
bined  has  not  permitted  a  larger  assembly,  although  I  am  somewhat 
surprised  to  find  it  so  large  as  it  is.  But  I  should  like  on  this  occa¬ 
sion  to  have  representatives,  as  it  were,  of  the  whole  Catholic  body, 
so  that  they  could  discuss  amongst  themselves  and  communicate  to 
all  their  brethren  in  the  city,  the  hints  I  am  about  to  throw  out  and 
the  views  I  intend  to  suggest,  and  consider  how  far  they  are  practi¬ 
cable  and  may  be  carried  out. 

It  is  known  to  you — at  least  if  you  have  paid  any  attention  to  the 
subject,  it  should  be  known — that  the  Catholics  are  far  too  numer¬ 
ous  for  the  spiritual  means  within  the  power  of  the  clergy.  It  is 
supposed  that  there  are  in  this  city  from  60,000  to  80,000  professors 
of  the  Catholic  faith — and  for  these  hoAV  many  clergy  ?  There  are 
able  to  perform  active  and  efficient  duty  9  or  10  at  the  most !  One 
clergyman  for  8,000  people,  or  for  7,000  if  you  take  a  lower  esti¬ 
mate.  What,  I  ask,  can  be  his  influence  among  such  a  mass  of  peo¬ 
ple  ?  Where  can  be  his  influence  in  the  first  great  elementary  di¬ 
vision  of  society — the  family  ?  Where  his  superintendence  of  the 
children  ?  He  who  from  morning  to  night  knows  no  rest  from  la¬ 
bor,  but  is  constantly  engaged  in  visiting  the  sick  or  attending  to 
other  duties,  and,  as  I  myself  from  experience  and  personal  knowl¬ 
edge  can  testify,  knows  no  hour  of  cessation,  has  not  a  moment  to 
devote  to  the  children.  ISTow  the  children  should  be  initiated  into 
the  knoAvledge  and  practice  of  their  religion,  from  nine  or  ten  years 
of  age.  But  the  clergy  are  so  busily  engaged  in  other  duties  of 
their  office,  that  even  if  children  presented  themselves  to  them  in 
croAvds,  they  cannot  be  attended  to. 

More,  we  have  not  church-room  enough  for  the  increasing  num¬ 
bers  of  the  Catholic  fold.  Without  additional  church  accommoda¬ 
tion,  there  never  will  be  that  just  proportion  between  the  numbers 
of  the  people  and  the  clergy,  that  is  necessary  for  the  due  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  power  of  religion  in  reforming  character  and  correcting 
vice — and  in  bringing  men  up  toAvards  that  high  and  holy  standard 
Avhich  our  ffiitli  proposes.  There  should  be,  to  effect  this,  at  least 
one  pastor  for  every  1200  or  1500  souls.  Any  clergyman  charged 
with  the  care  of  that  number  has  quite  as  much  as  he  is  able  to  an- 
17 


258 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


SAver  for.  If  there  Avere  clergymen  in  that  proportion,  then  would 
their  personal  influence  be  fblt,  and  not  as  noAV.  We  noAV  see  our 
people  in  large  masses  on  Sunday — they  disperse — we  meet  them 
in  the  street — but  Ave  know  them  not.  There  may  be  a  thousand 
evils  existing,  spreading  their  desolating  influence,  and  bringing 
scandal  and  reproach  on  the  Catholic  name,  not  from  remissness 
on  the  part  of  the  clergy,  but  from  mere  physical  inability  to  attend 
to  the  Avants  of  such  multitudes. 

Should  Ave  not  then — I  speak  now  of  the  whole  Catholic  body — 
endeaA'or  to  diminish  this  disproportion  between  the  numbers  of  our 
clergy  and  people  ?  Certainly  ;  and  everything  going  tOAvards  that 
should  be  something  dear  in  the  breast  of  every  Catholic  in  the  com¬ 
munity.  [Loud  cheers] 

And  now  I  have  another  topic.  Supposing  we  had  the  clergy,  we 
Avant  the  churches  too.  And  when  I  speak  of  churches,  it  strikes 
me  that  most  of  those  acquainted  with  the  present  state  of  our 
churches,  swamped  as  they  are  in  debt,  will  say  I  had  better  not  re¬ 
fer  at  all  to  this  subject.  But  it  is  true  that  the  Catholic  churches 
are  obliged  to  pay  in  interest  for  debt,  a  sum  which  Avould  enable 
us  to  build  one  neAV  church  at  a  cost  of  |20,000  eA'ery  year.  Is  not 
this  state  of  things  calculated  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  Catho¬ 
lic  body  ?  [Loud  cheers.]  I  have  made  an  estimate  from  items  I  have 
received,  and  find  that  the  amount  of  the  debt  is  |300,000  ;  and  yet, 
enormous  as  that  debt  may  appear,  if  a  general  Catholic  spirit  Avere 
diftused  amongst  those  Avho  profess  our  religion,  it  would  not  Aveigh 
as  it  Avere  one  feather  against  the  progress  of  our  faith.  A  united 
action — a  combination  of  eftbrt — in  a  word  a  chano-e  in  the  circum- 
stances  ol  that  debt,  Avould  in  a  short  time  bring  about  such  a  state  of 
things  that  it  would  cease  to  be  felt,  and  means  would  be  provided 
for  the  onward  march  of  our  religion  in  proportion  to  the  increasing 
wants  of  the  people. 

How  could  all  this  be  done  ?  Let  us  take  our  figures  again.  Let 
us  suppose  that  instead  of  a  Aveak  congregation  here  struggling 
with  debt,  and  a  strong  congregation  there  Avith  very  little  debt — 
that  instead  of  leaAung  the  weak  congregation  to  struggle  with  a 
burden  doubly  oppressiA^e  on  account  of  that  weakness,  the  strong 
should  come  to  its  assistance,  in  a  short  time  the  whole,  or  principal 
part  of  that  debt  Avould  be  SAvept  away.  What  would  you  thus  do  ? 
I  address  you  as  if  you  Avere  the  Avhole  Catholic  body  of  ISTcav  York. 
You  Avould  take  money  out  of  one  pocket  and  put  it  in  the  other — 
you  Avould  be  gradually  extinguishing  that  debt,  for  which  you  are 
noAV  obliged  to  pay  a  large  sum  for  interest,  which  is  all  swalloAved 
up.  [Cheers.] 

I  have  said  that  this  state  of  things  hinders  the  progress  of  our  re¬ 
ligion,  and  I  will  tell  you  hoAV.  Suppose  a  number  of  people  cannot 
find  church  accommodation,  and  they  resolve  to  build  a  church. 
They  apply  to  the  Bishop  for  permission,  which  if  granted,  immedi¬ 
ately  the  pecuniary  wants  of  the  neighboring  congregation  where 
they  may  have  attended,  induce  them  to  rise  up  and  say  “  If  leave  be 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOIT. 


259 


granted  you  will  ruin  us,  for  our  revenue,  notwithstanding  all  we  do 
by  oratorios,  and  this  and  that  other  means,  is  scarcely  adequate 
to  keep  us  afloat,  and  if  you  allow  another  church,  it  will  draw  away 
so  much  of  our  revenue,  and  we  will  sink.”  And  so,  for  fear  of  all 
that,  the  souls  of  peojde  must  be  left  destitute. 

Should  such  a  state  of  things  be  permitted  to  continue  ?  Is  it  not 
one  which  calls  immediately  for  any  action  by  which  a  reasonable 
hope  may  be  expected  of  diminishing  the  progress  of  that  impedi¬ 
ment  to  the  advance  of  our  religion  ?  It  is  not  however  for  churches 
alone  that  exertions  are  necessary.  It  is  for  everything  that  religion 
requires.  I  may  quote  an  instance — I  mean  of  the  college  which  I 
undertook  some  time  ago.  There  has  been  no  want  of  zeal  on  our 
part  to  present  the  claims  of  that  institution  ;  and,  although  a  good 
deal  was  subscribed,  and  a  good  deal  paid,  yet  it  was  with  the  great¬ 
est  difficulty  that  we  could  drag  along.  Because  it  was  a  general 
cry.  We  have  to  sustain  our  church  and  we  are  sinking.  There  was 
no  end  to  this ;  and  thus  in  the  isolated  difficixlty  of  each  particular 
portion  arises  that  want  of  general  zeal  so  necessary  to  carry  any 
thing  triumphantly  through. 

Now  what  is  there  to  prevent  an  association  which  I  intend  to 
form — that  is,  on  the  principle  of  one  of  which  I  will  have  more  to 
say  at  another  time,  and  which  is  designated  the  “  Association  for 
Propagating  the  Faith” — to  the  funds  of  which  the  members  con¬ 
tributed  one  cent  weekly  ?  This  society  is  now  extensively  known 
in  Europe,  and  has  been  the  means  of  extending  the  Catholic  faith 
from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun,  more  or  less  in  every  region 
where  that  faith  has  been  proclaimed,  since  its  origin.  There  is  no 
reason  why  such  an  institution  should  not  be  established  amongst 
us ;  and  although  the  rules  of  that  institution  require  that  the  funds 
should  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  Central  Board,  nevertheless  I 
have  reason  to  believe  that  in  a  country  like  this,  and  in  our  circum¬ 
stances,  they  would  never  ask  a  penny  of  them  expended  anywhere 
but  in  the  cliocese  itself.  The  money  thus  collected  would  be  dis¬ 
tributed  amongst  the  churches,  and  would  soon  extinguish  the  bur¬ 
den  which  now  presses  thein  down  to  the  earth,  instead  of  sinking 
$20,000,  year  after  year,  in  the  payment  of  interest.  Besides,  the 
churches  would  contribute  in  this  way  cheerfully,  aware  that  no 
other  collections  would  be  made,  as  at  present,  by  means  of  ora¬ 
torios  and  fairs,  and  other  temporary  expedients,  in  which  a  few 
take  an  interest,  and  which  are  of  so  little  avail.  For,  let  me  sup¬ 
pose  a  case.  W e  get  up  an  oratorio  for  the  benefit  of  a  church. 
Well,  it  is  all  well  enough,  and  the  audience — which  may  sometimes 
be  five,  six,  eight  hundred,  or  a  thousand — suppose  that  their  dol¬ 
lars  go  to  the  benefit  of  the  church  ;  but,  it  is  found  in  the  end  that 
all  the  dollars  went  for  the  music,  and  that  the  church  gets  nothing! 
Would  not  Catholics,  then,  rather  give  their  dollar,  knowing  it 
would  be  appropriated  directly  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  given  ? 
Let  some  plan  then  be  organized.  I  only  throw  out  hints  on  which  I 
wish  you  to  dwell,  so  that  when  something  more  tangible  is  pre- 


260 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


seated,  you  will  be  entitled  to  give  it  proper  consideration.  We 
are  now  speaking  on  a  kind  of  half-gronnd  between  cliurches  and 
banks  [a  la  igli],  and  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  do  so  in  a  place  where 
to  speak  of  such  things  does  not  render  us  liable  to  the  charge  of 
profanation.  [Cheers.] 

We  have  been  speaking  of  the  small  amount  necessary  for  each 
individual ;  and  in  this  time,  when  projects  for  reformation  are  made 
on  every  hand,  and  amongst  others  that  for  the  promotion  of  tem¬ 
perance — where  'we  see  it  extending  on  every  side  with  happiest 
results,  in  regard  not  only  to  the  increased  temporal  comforts  of  the 
people,  but  to  their  disposition  to  return  with  more  fidelity  and 
deeper  devotion  to  the  duties  of  their  religion — on  the  Report  of 
the  Temperance  Society  I  have  taken  the  pains  to  make  a  little  cal¬ 
culation.  Supposing  the  Catholics  in  this  diocese  to  number,  as  it 
is  said  they  do,  200,000,  and  making  an  allowance — striking  as  it 
were  a  kind  of  average  line  between  those  who  drink  more  than 
they  ought,  those  who  drink  moderately,  and  those  who  do  not 
drink  at  all — would  it  be  too  much  to  suppose  that  on  an  average 
each  expends  three  cents  a  day  for  eveiy  kind  of  drink?  How 
much,  then,  do  you  think  do  the  Catholics,  who  are  so  poor,  and 
obliged  to  earn  their  daily  bread  by  laborious  toil,  expend  for  drink 
every  year  ?  Why,  just  as  near  as  may  be,  two  million  two  hun¬ 
dred  and  ninety  thousand  dollars  a  year  !  If  this  be  correct,  and  if 
for  one  year  the  whole  community  would  practice  total  abstinence, 
where  would  the  debts  of  the  churches  be  ?  [Loud  cheers.]  Well, 
if  the  small  contributions  of  the  many  amassed  together  produce 
such  an  important  result,  I  ask,  need  the  Catholics  of  New  York  be 
any  longer  retarded  by  that  debt  ?  But  they  should  change  their 
position.  Instead  of  indefinitely  paying  the  interest,  and  thereby 
crippling  every  efibrt — instead  of  allowing  m.atters  to  remain  in  this 
condition — let  some  general  plan  be  adopted  by  which  the  debt  may 
be  extinguished  altogether.  By  one  united  effort,  in  three  years  the 
debt  might  be  all  swept  away,  and  then  you  could  go  on  for  ten  or 
fifteen  years,  adding  each  year  a  church  to  the  number  already 
erected,  and  that  would  not  be  more  than  the  wants  of  the  people 
require.  [Cheers.] 

It  is  not  the  time  now,  nor  are  we  now  prepared  for  submitting  a 
plan  for  this  purpose,  but,  without  going  into  detail,  it  seems  that 
one  might  be  suggested  which  gentlemen  may  think  over  in  their 
minds.  My  own  notion  would  be  to  form  a  general  association  for 
the  purpose — to  take  the  churches  one  with  another — every  church 
in  the  city,  Irish,  Frencli,  and  German — and,  by  an  equal  distribu¬ 
tion  to  all,  to  go  on  till  all  should  be  clear  of  debt.  That  is  to  say, 
suppose,  in  the  first  instance,  eight  churches,  partakers  of  a  general 
distribution,  the  collection  would  be  made  to  fall  equally  on  all 
parts  of  the  city.  But  some  to  wLom  I  have  spoken  of  this  have 
said  that  will  not  pass  with  some,  because  they  will  say,  we  owe  but 
little,  and  we  should  not  be  obliged  to  contribute  for  others.  But, 
after  all,  what  would  be  the  difference  ?  No  one  would  feel  it  in  the 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


261 


end.  At  present,  demands  are  incessantly  made  which  fall  chiefly 
on  the  same  individuals,  ^yho  would  surely  much  rather  tliat  once 
for  all  a  regular  united  effort  were  made,  with  the  understanding 
that  no  other  expedients  would  be  resorted  to,  and  that  the  money 
collected  was  to  be  employed  in  extinguishing  the  debt  itself. 
[Cheers.] 

I  have  thrown  out  the  few  hints  that  I  intended  to  offer  on  the 
present  occasion.  Probably,  when  Ave  meet  again,  something  more 
practical,  something  in  the  form  of  a  system,  may  be  offered  to  your 
notice,  by  which  the  great  end  in  view  may  be  accomplished.  I 
know  that  it  is  easy  at  meetings  to  propose  things  of  this  kind,  and 
that  at  first  there  is  considerable  ardor,  but  that  that  ardor  abates,  and 
things  remain  as  before.  I  conceive  that  the  explanation  of  that 
may  be  found,  to  a  very  great  extent,  in  the  circumstances  in  w’hich 
eA'ery  effort  of  the  kind  has  been  heretofore  made ;  namely,  that  it 
is  never  made  till  the  church  is  pressed,  and  those  that  feel  the 
pressure  show  a  great  deal  of  zeal  at  first,  but  instantly,  from  a  want 
of  united  effort,  it  fails.  I  feel  for  the  church  with  which  I  am  my¬ 
self  acquainted,  but  I  find  one  going  this  Avay  and  another  that  way, 
and  the  isolated  effort  is  lost.  But  let  the  effort  be  general,  and  my 
zeal  will  not  be  damped.  There  is  no  use  in  concealing  our  situa¬ 
tion.  Let  it  be  impressed  on  the  people  that  the  churches  should 
be  paid  for — that  in  doing  that  they  do  not  make  themselves  poorer, 
as  they  do  by  paying  the  interest,  but  will  extinguish  this  debt  for 
which  thejr  are  continually  taxed.  Let  this  be  explained  and  under¬ 
stood,  and  let  us  take  the  interest  in  the  matter  which  it  requires. 
And  the  effort  will  not  necessarily  require  to  be  continued,  for  in 
two  or  three  years  at  most  the  incubus  would  be  removed,  and 
prosperity  would  reward  our  exertions.  [Cheers.] 

Noav,  it  may  be  asked,  how  comes  it  that  our  churches  are  so 
much  in  debt  ?  It  results  from  the  circumstance  that  the  people 
have  flowed  in  on  us  faster  than  we  were  ready  to  receive  them. 
Because  the  very  zeal  for  religion  by  which  a  temple  was  erected, 
wherein  the  poor  emigrant  landing  on  these  shores  might  adore  his 
God,  provided  it  before  those  for  Avhose  accommodation  it  was  built 
were  able  to  redeem  it.  All  the  efforts  that  could  be  made  for  the 
time  have  been  employed.  But  had  they  waited  till  the  people  were 
able  to  pay  for  the  churches,  the  churches  Avould  not  have  been 
built,  and  Ave  would  have  been  in  a  still  worse  condition  than  at 
present.  But  in  the  interval  these  people  have  become  able  to  con¬ 
tribute,  and  if  the  effort  be  made  with  unanimity,  it  will  be  an  easy 
matter  to  extinguish  the  debt  thus  contracted,  or  so  to  reduce  it  as 
to  be  equivalent  to  its  destruction  in  a  short  time.  [Cheers.]  With 
these  suggestions  I  conclude,  and  recommend  my  observations  to 
your  consideration. 

But  one  thing  I  may  add,  that  if  you  have  any  idea  of  succeeding 
in  this  undertaking,  you  must  embark  in  it  Avdth  a  large  spirit — with 
minds  that  grasp  the  whole  subject,-  and  you  must  blot  out  all  petty 
distinctions  and  considerations  of  individual  profit.  And  are  we 


I 


262 


ARCHBISHOP  HUSHES. 


not  all  one  body,  united  in  one  faith  ?  and  according  to  the  very 
terms  of  that  faith,  if  one  member  sulfer,  all  should  suffer  with  it. 
[Cheers.]  Who  is  there  that  would  not  feel  the  blush  mantling  his 
cheek,  when  he  hears  that  a  church,  in  which  had  been  celebrated 
the  Holy  Mysteries,  had  been  desecrated  by  the  hammer  of  the 
sheriff!  [Loud  applause.]  Who  is  there  that  has  a  pulse  within 
him  that  does  not  feel  it  a  degradation  to  himself,  though  ,  he  may 
never  have  worshipped  in  that  church,  nor  hoped  to  worship  there  ? 
Now  is  the  time  for  one  united  effort,  and  I  trust  that  it  will  be 
made. 


Important  Meeting  of  the  Friends  of  Freedom  of  Educa¬ 
tion,  in  Washington  Hall,  June  1,  1841. 

Pursuant  to  the  call  for  a  meeting  to  be  held  on  Tuesday  eve¬ 
ning,  the  1st  of  June,  1841,  at  the  Washington  Hall,  corner  of 
Broadway  and  Reade  street,  of  all  persons  interested  in  the  cause 
of  education  of  the  children  of  the  poor,  a  general  meeting  was  held, 
and  was  organized  by  calling  Gregory  Dillon,  Esq.,  to  the  chair, 
and  the  appointment  of  B.  O’Connor  and  Edward  Shortill  as  secre¬ 
taries. 

The  minutes  of  the  last  meeting  having  been  read  and  approved, 
James  W.  McKeon,  Esq.,  on  behalf  of  the  Executive  Committee,  of 
which  he  was  chairman,  made  a  report  of  the  proceedings  since  the 
presentation  to  the  Legislature,  at  its  last  session,  of  the  memorial 
of  those  who,  dissatisfied  with  the  present  system  of  education  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  were  desirous  that  its  blessings  should  be 
more  equally  and  widely  extended. 

Mr,  McKeon  then  offered,  on  behalf  of  the  Executive  Committee, 
the  following  resolutions : — Resolved^  That  although  we  deeply  re¬ 
gret  the  postponement  of  the  New  York  School  Bill  by  the  Senate 
of  the  State,  we  yet  perceive  in  the  liberal  sentiments  which  prevail 
in  that  high  tribunal  an  acknowledgment  of  the  grievances  under 
which  we  labor ;  grievances  inflicted  upon  a  large  portion  of  the  pop¬ 
ulation  under  the  present  system,  by  a  private  corporation  at  va¬ 
riance  in  all  its  features  with  the  principles  of  our  republican  insti¬ 
tutions.  That  in  the  manifestation  of  the  enlightened  view.s  enter¬ 
tained  by  distinguished  members  of  the  Senate  in  behalf  of  the 
claims  of  the  neglected  and  indigent  children  of  the  metropolis  now 
excluded  from  a  participation  in  the  benefits  of  the  Common  School 
F und,  we  recognize  a  powerful  incentive  to  increased  perseverance 
in  a  cause  which  is  one  alike  of  reason,  humanity  and  justice. 

Resolved^  That  we  conjure  those  from  whom  the  light  of  knowl¬ 
edge  is  withheld,  and  upon  whom  the  calamities  of  ignorance  are 
entailed  by  reason  of  their  want  of  confidence  in  the  present  intol¬ 
erant  and  exacting  monopoly  system,  to  “  be  of  good  cheer,”  for  in 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


263 


that  spirit  of  justice  and  equality  which  breathes  through  all  our 
institutions  there  is  a  confident  assurance  of  the  complete  and  final 
enfranchisement  of  those  who  suffer  the  goadings  of  oppression  for 
conscience’  sake. 

Resolved,  That  the  imposition  and  collection  of  taxes,  the  disposi¬ 
tion  and  disbursement  of  which  is  confided  to  a  private  corporation, 
is  contrary  to  every  juunciple  of  resjionsibility  sanctioned  by  this 
government,  and  in  the  highest  degree  dangerous  to  our  institutions 
as  establishing  a  precedent  alarming  in  its  character,  because  of  the 
power  with  which  it  invests  a  corporate  body  to  abuse  a  public 
trust  without  fear  of  consequences  to  its  members,  and  in  its  will  and 
pleasure  to  set  the  constituted  authorities  at  defiance. 

Resolved.  That  the  property  acquired  by  the  public  money  should 
be  held  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the  State,  and  that  the  authori¬ 
ties  are  imperatively  required  by  sound  policy  and  duty  to 
take  immediate  measures  to  prevent  property  purchased  by  funds 
raised  by  taxation  from  passing  into  the  possession  of  a  monopoly 
over  which  the  community  have  no  control. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Hughes  then  rose,  amid  loud  cheering,  and  ad¬ 
dressed  the  meeting  nearly  as  follows  : 

He  commenced  by  saying,  I  have  no  doubt,  gentlemen,  that,  not¬ 
withstanding  the  explanations  which  I  have  made  on  former  occasions, 
•and  which  I  trust  are  satisfactory,  yet  with  those  who  are  opposed  to 
us  on  the  subject  in  relation  to  which  we  are  met  this  evening  it  will 
be  considered  that  in  appearing  here  I  occupy  a  place  very  inappro¬ 
priate,  undignified,  and  inconsistent  with  my  character  as  a  bishop. 
But,  fortunately,  I  am  not  obliged  to  measure  my  movements  nor 
my  conduct  by  any  rules  which  those  gentlemen  may  please  to  pre¬ 
scribe.  I  entertain  my  own  sense  of  propriety,  and  by  that,  and 
not  by  what  may  be  said  by  those  who  would  desire  that  I  should 
be  silent  on  this  subject,  shall  I  be  governed.  I  do  not  esteem  it 
any  discredit  or  anything  inconsistent  with  my  charactex',  that  I 
should  appear  in  such  a  place  as  this,  and  in  a  meeting  convened  for 
such  purposes  as  the  present.  On  the  contrary,  I  do  not  hesitate  to 
declare  that,  next  to  the  performance  of  the  functions  of  the  sacred 
office  which  I  hold,  I  consider  that  I  cannot  be  employed  in  a  man¬ 
ner  more  consistent  with  the  character  of  that  office  than  in  advo¬ 
cating  the  cause  of  the  pool’,  the  oppressed  and  indigent  children 
who  are  excluded  from  the  light  of  knowledge  and  deprived  of  a 
just  right  by  the  unjust  and  grasping  spirit  of  an  irresponsible  and 
domineering  society.  It  is  for  this  that  I  appear  here — to  help  to 
raise  up  the  poor  and  uneducated  from  the  degradation  of  ignorance 
to  which  a  powerful  and  selfish  body  would  consign  them,  unless 
they  would  consent  to  sacrifice  their  conscientious  convictions.  In 
their  defence  I  have  taken  my  stand — no  taunts  shall  deter  me — not 
even  the  omnipotent  Press  can  drive  me  from  it.  I  shall  abide  by 
it  to  the  last,  so  long  as  I  can  raise  my  voice  and  assist  in  making 
the  truth  heard  and  known  on  the  great  and  vital  principle  for 
which  we  are  contending.  [Great  and  continued  cheering.] 


264 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Ill  tlie  resolutions  which  have  been  offered  by  the  gentleman  who 
has  just  addressed  you,  there  is  something  which  I  would  notice 
that  appears  like  an  expression  of  regret  at  the  postponement  of 
final  action  upon  our  claims.  I  must  say,  respectfully,  that  I  dissent 
from  this.  I  see  nothing  to  regret  in  the  course  w'hich  things  have 
taken,  and  I  feel  no  regret.  Indeed  I  might  almost  say  that  I  re¬ 
joice  at  the  disposition  which  has  been  made  of  our  application  for 
the  present ;  for  however  gratifying  the  immediate  grant  of  an  un¬ 
doubted  right,  such  as  that  w^hich  we  claim,  would  be  to  us,  yet 
when  it  will  be  secured  to  us,  as  secured  it  undoubtedly  will  be, 
after  the  grave  and  mature  deliberation  for  which  this  postponement 
will  afford  opportunity,  it  will  be  a  source  of  much  more  confident 
and  solid  congratulation  than  if  our  success  should  appear  to  be  the 
result  of  any  seeming  haste  or  carelessness  on  the  part  of  those  to 
whom  we  have  applied  for  redress.  It  will  be  remembered  that  at 
all  times  and  upon  all  occasions,  and  whenever  we  have  spoken  or 
written  upon  this  subject  we  have  invariably  declared  that  we  asked 
for  nothing  but  what  was  right  and  just,  and  that  whenever  it  ap¬ 
peared  that  there  was  anything  wrong,  anything  in  our  claims  to 
which  we  were  not  as  citizens  of  this  State  strictly  entitled,  that  in¬ 
stant  we  would  relinquish  it.  This  is  the  principle  upon  which  we 
commenced,  and  upon  which  we  have  acted,  and  to  which  we  shall 
always  adhere.  And  our  cause  being  thus  the  cause  of  Truth  and 
Justice,  what  have  we  to  fear  from  time?  Nothing.  We  desire 
that  our  claim  should  be  investigated,  because  we  are  convinced 
that  the  more  it  is  considered  and  examined  the  more  apparent  will 
become  the  soundness  of  the  principles  upon  wdiich  it  is  based.  We 
desire  investigation,  therefore,  and  are  willing  that  ample  time 
should  be  given  for  that  purpose.  And  that  the  question  has  been 
postponed  and  time  taken  for  more  mature  reflection,  is  not,  I  repeat, 
a  matter  for  regret  or  surprise.  And  so  I  have  no  doubt  the  post¬ 
ponement  Avas  considered  by  those  Senators,  or  by  many  of  them  at 
least,  Avho  desired  to  make  themselves  more  fully  acquainted  Avith 
the  subject.  They  generally  expressed  themselves  in  faAmr  of  the 
principle  for  which  Ave  contend,  but  desired  time  to  hear  and  ex¬ 
amine  all  the  objections  that  could  be  urged  against  it,  and  I  honor 
them  that  they  haA'e  done  so.  They  Avere  responsible  to  their  con¬ 
stituents,  and  they  AAmre  right  in  demanding  time  to  be  able  to  as¬ 
sure  themselves  that  they  Avould  not,  in  granting  the  prayer  of  the 
petitioners,  be  committing  an  error.  Had  it  been  othei’Avise, — had 
a  laAV  securing  to  us  our  rights  been  immediately  passed, — might  it 
not  have  been  urged  Avith  some  plausibility  by  our  opponents,  that 
it  Avas  hasty  legislation  ;  that  the  State  Government  was  carried  in 
an  unguarded  moment ;  and  thus  dissatisfaction  Avould  have  been 
created,  and  the  system  proposed  to  be  established  might  fail  of 
securinor  that  general  confidence  Avhich  is  so  essential  to  the  success 
of  public  measures  of  a  comprehensive  character  ?  But  noAv  no  ob¬ 
jection  of  that  kind  can  be  raised.  Ample  time  is  given  for  inquiry 
and  deliberation,  and  the  success  Avhich  aAvaits  us  will  be  stable  and 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOIiT. 


265 


permanent.  This  is  not  a  prospect  that  can  excite  regret ;  and  when 
I  reflect  on  the  advance  which  onr  cause  has  made,  the  favorable 
consideration  witli  which  it  has  been  received  by  the  Legislature, 
and  the  emj)hatic  manner  in  which  the  justice  of  our  principles  has 
been  confirmed  by  wise  and  patriotic  and  enlightened  men,  who 
have  taken  them  up  and  advocated  them,  I  must  say  that  I  am  glad 
of  the  result.  Our  cause  stands  well,  and  time  and  inquiry  will  only 
help,  certainly  cannot  injure  us.  Besides,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  in  so  grave  a  matter  as  legislation  which  is  to  affect  the  desti¬ 
nies  of  a  whole  people  for  years,  perhaps  for  ages,  a  period  of  three 
months,  or  six  months,  or  a  year,  is  no  more  than  so  many  hours 
would  be  in  the  transaction  of  ordinary  private  business.  So  grati¬ 
fying,  indeed,  is  the  present  position  of  the  case,  that  it  is  in  reality 
more  amusing  than  otherwise  to  note  the  many  shifts  and  devices 
which  the  Public  School  Society  have  been  led  to  adopt,  one  after 
the  other,  with  the  hope  of  defeating  us.  But  they  were  met  on 
every  point,  and  failing  in  everything  else,  they  at  last  were  reduced 
to  such  extremity  that  their  final  efforts  were  spent  in  endeavoring 
to  show  that  the  applicants  to  the  Legislature  were  Catholics,  and 
therefore  not  entitled  to  any  consideration !  This  was  their  last 
great  effort — you  were  Catholics.  [Cheers  and  great  laughter.] 
So  desperate  did  their  cause  become,  even  in  their  own  estimation, 
that  no  means  were  deemed  by  them  too  vile  or  despicable  to  be 
resorted  to,  in  order  to  preserve  their  power.  Charges  were  fabri¬ 
cated,  and  circulars,  containing  the  most  gross  and  contemptible 
untruths  respecting  Catholics  and  their  tenets,  were  industriously 
prepared  and  distributed  amongst  the  members  of  the  Senate,  with 
the  hope  of  influencing  their  decision.  I  do  not  say  that  the  Trus¬ 
tees  of  the  School  Society  were  themselves  personally  the  distrib¬ 
uters  of  these  slanders,  but — to  give  you  a  specimen  of  what  was 
done — their  agent,  or  one  of  their  agents  at  Albany,  was  detected 
placing  on  the  desks  of  the  senators — what  think  you  ?  why,  an 
absurd  and  abominable  malediction  which  they  put  forth  as  the 
Catholic  form  of  excommunication,  but  which,  in  fact  and  in  truth, 
was  nothing  more  than  a  pure  fabrication  of  Sterne,  witten  for  his 
own  amusement,  in  his  book  called  Tkistram  Shandy  !  And  these 
high  literary  gentlemen — these  self-constituted,  peculiar,  exclusive 
dispensers  of  light,  and  knowledge,  and  education,  were  either  so 
ignorant  as  not  to  know  the  true  character  and  origin  of  the  docu- 
ment  Avhich  they  so  industriously  circulated,  or,  knowing  its  char¬ 
acter,  they  Avere  so  bigoted  and  careless  of  honor,  and  truth,  and 
justice,  and  good  principle,  in  their  anxiety  to  forAvard  a  bad  cause, 
that  they  did  not  hesitate  to  give  the  falsehood  currency.  What 
must  be  thought  of  conduct  like  this  ?  Avhen  men  of  acknowledged 
standing  and  influence — men  educated  and  enjoying  a  high  position 
in  society  by  their  character  and  affluence — could  descend  to  base 
artifices  that  place  them  on  a  level  Avith  those  Avho  brought  Maria 
Monk  into  the  Avorld — not  the  living  jMaria  Monk — but  the  infa¬ 
mous  book  knoAV  u  by  her  name  Avhich  has  been  sent  abroad,  carry- 


266 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ing  poison  and  falsehood  into  the  bosom  of  every  family  where  it 
could  be  introduced. 

But  this  was  only  in  keeping  with  the  whole  system  of  warfare 
that  has  been  opposed  to  us.  When  we  were  before  another  tribu¬ 
nal,  instead  of  meeting  the  question  fairly,  it  will  be  remembered 
how  every  nook  and  corner  was  searched,  and  what  dusty  tomes 
were  produced  to  prove — what  ?  Nothing  ;  but  to  create,  if  possible, 
a  sectarian  prejudice  against  the  acknowledgment  of  our  rights. 
Some  even  went  so  far  as  to  tell  you  openly  to  your  face  that  they  would 
rather  be  infidels  with  V oltaire,  than  be  such  as  you  ;  and  yet,  with 
this  declaration  still  sounding  in  your  ears,  they  will  ask  you  to 
commit  your  children  to  their  charge.  And  how  do  they  ask  you  ? 
They  will  send  round  their  agents — agents  of  Tract  Societies — as 
has  been  proved  at  Albany — who,  when  they  come  to  your  house, 
will  take  the  child,  and  leave  a  tract.  And  all  this,  they  will  tell 
you,  is  nothing  sectarian.  But  we  say  that  it  is,  and  we  know,  and 
every  one  knows,  that  it  is  ;  and  it  is  to  all  this  sectarianism  which 
is  inseparably  interwoven  with  their  system — these  underhand  at¬ 
tacks  upon  the  faith  of  our  children — that  I  object  and  ever  shall 
object. 

I  feel,  Mr.  President,  that  in  viewing  this  subject  I  can  divest  my¬ 
self  of  all  prejudices.  I  feel  that  I  should  sin  and  ofiend  against  God 
if  I  should  impute  to  any  sect  or  denomination,  tenets  or  principles, 
or  practices,  which  they  themselves  would  repudiate  and  deny  that 
they  held  or  observed.  And  I  feel  and  know  that  I  should  be  want¬ 
ing  in  charity,  the  most  essential  of  Christian  virtues,  if  I  could  per¬ 
mit  myself  to  infringe  upon,  or  to  do  any  violence  to,  the  rights  of 
another,  because  he  belonged  to  a  different  communion  from  that  to 
which  I  was  attached.  I  mistake  myself,  or  I  would  be  as  zealous 
and  sincere  in  advocating  the  rights  of  any  other  denomination — 
Methodist,  or  Episcopalian,  or  Presbyterian,  or  any  other — which 
should  be  placed  in  circumstances  similar  to  those  in  which  we  are 
now  situated.  And  it  is  this  principle  of  general  and  equal  protec¬ 
tion  for  all,  which  you  are  now  seeking  to  maintain,  and  which,  I 
trust,  shall  upon  every  occasion  continue  to  animate  you.  [Great 
cheers.] 

But  have  we  been  met  in  a  similar  spirit?  We  have  not.  That 
Society  which  has  so  perseveringly  opposed  every  effort  which  we 
have  made  for  redress,  has  abundantly  earned  for  itself  that  epithet, 
which  has  been  often  applied  to  it,  of  a  soulless  corporatian,  and  has 
used  every  artifice  and  means  in  its  power  to  vilify  and  defame  us 
and  our  principles.  Yes,  defamation  is  the  term.  I  do  not  say 
they  have  done  it  knowingly.  That  is  not  a  point  for  me  to  deter¬ 
mine.  But  they  have  defamed  us.  I  aver  it  and  insist  upon  it — 
the  have  defamed  us  Avith  their  extracts  from  Tristram  Shandy 
and  other  documents  of  an  equally  high  literary  character,  credit¬ 
able  to  the  liberality  and  the  pretensions  to  learning  and  knowledge 
of  a  body  so  ambitious  to  be  the  sole  instructors  of  the  youth  of  the 
city.  And  I  challenge  them  to  meet  me  and  prove  that  what  they 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


267 


have  laid  to  onr  charge  has  any  foundation  in  truth,  or  is  anything 
else  but  defamation,  [Loud  cheering.] 

I  did  desire  to  refer  someAvhat  in  detail  to  the  remonstrances  and 
other  matters  submitted  by  the  Public  School  Society  to  the  Senate, 
on  this  subject ;  but  owing  to  the  late  hour  at  -which  we  have  re¬ 
ceived  them,  I  have  been  unable  to  examine  them  with  that  attention 
which  would  be  necessary.  One  of  their  principal  arguments  has 
been,  that  corporations  have  been  sometimes  found  very  serviceable 
ill  assisting  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  government,  and 
therefore  they,  the  Public  School  Society,  are  a  useful  and  necessary 
agent ;  and  they  have  gone  on,  reasoning  by  parity,  and  have  cited 
the  cases  of  an  almshouse — institutions  for  the  deaf  and  dumb — and 
a  lunatic  asylum — as  instances  in  which  corporations  have  been  en¬ 
trusted  with  the  discharge  of  certain  duties.  These  gentlemen  then 
would  have  it  believed,  that  you  are  as  lunatics — that  the  people  of 
the  city  of  ISTew  York  are  as  the  deaf  and  the  dumb,  and  the  insane, 
and  incapable  of  managing  their  own  affairs.  [Cheers  and  laughter.] 
The  poor  of  the  city  who  become  inmates  of  the  almshouse,  have 
trustees  or  guardians  ajipointed  to  administer  to  their  wants,  and 
therefore  you  also  must  have  trustees.  But  even  admitting  the  cor¬ 
rectness  of  the  premises  of  the  Public  School  Society  on  this  point, 
there  is  no  analogy  between  the  cases.  The  tenant  of  the  almshouse 
enters  there  to  receive  benefits  accruing  from  taxes  to  which  he 
does  not  contribute,  while  you,  for  whom  the  Public  School  Society 
desire  to  act,  are  tax-payers  and  are  left,  under  their  system,  without, 
any  voice  in  the  management  or  disposition  of  funds  to  which  you 
have  contributed.  That  there  should  be  representation  wherever 
there  is  taxation,  is  one  of  the  most  essential  rights  secured  by  the 
institutions  of  our  country,  but  the  Public  School  Society  would, 
with  respect  to  you,  subvert  that  important  principle. 

The  whole  matter  now  stands  in  this  position.  At  the  commence¬ 
ment,  the  great  alarm  raised,  was,  that  the  admission  of  our  claim 
would  be  a  step  towards  the  union  of  Church  and  State.  And  if 
those  who  opposed  us  upon  that  ground  were  sincere  in  it,  I  respect 
them  for  their  opposition ;  for  there  is  nothing  which  every  patriot 
should  feel  to  be  a  more  imperative  duty  than  to  resist  to  the  utter¬ 
most  any  attempt  to  introduce  measures  tending  to  so  disastrous  a 
result.  But  we  denied  and  disproved  the  justice  of  that  allegation. 
The  charge  of  Church  and  State  is  now  no  longer  heard,  and  they 
appear  only  to  labor  to  prove  that  we  are  Catholics,  and,  as  such, 
unworthy  to  be  heard. 

But  it  is  not  now  with  the  city  of  New  York  a  mere  question 
■whether  or  not  the  Catholics  shall  be  allowed  to  jiai’ticipate  in  the 
blessings  of  a  common  school  education,  but  whether  there  shall  be 
any  public  education  at  all  allowed  in  this  city  except  such  as  shall 
be  under  the  absolute  and  exclusive  control  and  dictation  of  this 
Public  School  Society.  We  did  not  ask  to  be  made  the  recipients 
of  any  of  the  public  money.  We  desired  to  leave  this  in  such  hands 
as  the  law  might  designate,  and  that  our  schools  should  be  subject 


268 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


to  the  coutrol  and  supervision  of  the  proper  authorities,  and  be  con¬ 
ducted  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State.  We  offered  everything 
that  could  be  in  reason  desired.  But  no.  The  Public  School  Soci¬ 
ety  interposed.  They  would  allow  of  no  rival.  They  will  not  par¬ 
take  of  a  divided  empire — Au(  Cmar^  axit  Nullus.  They  will  be 
Cfesar  or  nothing.  And  if  we  will  not  take  just  such  an  education 
as  they  will  choose  to  give  us,  we  are  to  have  none  at  all.  This  is 
the  alternative  to  which  they  would  compel  the  people  of  this  city 
to  submit.  You  must  submit  your  children  to  the  discipline  of  the 
School  Trustees,  or  they  shall  be  brought  up  in  ignorance. 

But  I  can  look  through  and  beyond  this  contest ;  and,  but  a  short 
distance  in  the  future,  I  can  see  him  who  is  but  now  a  child — one 
of  those  who  are  shut  out  from  the  light  of  knowledge  by  the  intol¬ 
erant  system  of  this  Public  School  Society — I  can  see  him,  but  a  few 
years  hence,  a  young  man  sunk  in  crime  and  iniquity,  for  which  they 
who  deprived  him  of  his  rights  will  be  yet  held  answerable  to  the 
Justice  of  God,  which  they  have  disregarded  and  forgotten  in  the 
spirit  of  unfeeling  exclusiveness,  that  makes  them  cling  pertina¬ 
ciously  to  the  power  which  they  have  acquired.  I  can  see  that 
young  man  brought  up  by  the  constable,  or  other  officer,  to  answer 
for  offences,  for  which  others  are  more  heavily  responsible  than  he. 
And  when  asked  by  the  Judge,  what  he  had  to  say  why  he  should 
not  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  w'hich  he  has  violated,  he  might, 
if  capable  of  tracing  consequences  back  to  their  causes,  reply  to  the 
interrogatory,  “  Yes,  I  have  much  to  say.  I  am  here  to  answer  for 
offences  for  which  I  am  not  so  much  to  blame  as  are  those  who  have 
darkened  my  path  and  left  me  defenceless  amid  temptations.  When 
a  child,  poor  and  indigent,  I  was  deprived  of  the  common  benefits 
of  education — of  that  common  right  which  my  country  had  provided 
and  had  intended  that  I  should  enjoy,  and  which  would  have  pre- 
ser^'ed  me  from  the  ruin  into  which  I  have  now  fallen.  But  I  was 
neglected.  I  grew  up  in  ignorance,  and  my  heart,  where  the  fair 
flowers  of  virtue  should  have  been  sown  and  cultivated,  was  suffered 
to  run  to  waste  until  the  weeds  of  vice  sprung  up  there  rank  and 
luxuriant.  And  all  this  was  the  result  of  an  unhappy  controversy 
between  my  parents  and  those  who  had  obtained  the  power  to  dis¬ 
pense,  according  to  their  discretion,  the  public  blessings  of  educa¬ 
tion.  My  parents  had  conscientious  objections,  whether  reasonable 
or  unreasonable,  to  the  peculiar  teachings  which  were  prescribed. 
They  would  not  accept  of  an  education  for  their  children  such  as 
was  offered,  and  in  this  they  acted  according  to  what  they  consci¬ 
entiously  believed  to  be  the  dictates  of  duty.  But  the  agents  of  the 
public  bounty  of  the  State  would  tolerate  nothing  besides.  They 
would  either  enforce  their  own  peculiar  system  of  education,  or 
leave  me  destitute  of  any.  And  now,  I  am  the  victim.  I  stand 
arraigned  for  crimes  which  had  their  origin  in  the  destitution  and 
mental  darkness  to  which  I  was  then  consigned — crimes,  the  guilt 
of  which  should  rest — not  on  me,  or  at  least,  not  on  me  alone — but 
on  those  who  preferred  to  see  the  moral  blight  and  desolation  of  this 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTI03T. 


269 


heart,  than  to  part  with  the  least  of  their  pretensions,  or  the  small¬ 
est  portion  of  that  power  Avhich  they  grasped  with  a  spirit  so  relent¬ 
less  and  uncompromising.”  [Loud  cheers.]  All  this  he  might  say 
and  more ;  and  I  have  presented  to  you  in  this  picture  no  fancifu' 
description.  It  is  one  which  the  realities  of  life  would  every  daj 
abundantly  justify. 

We  have,  however,  the  hope  now  of  redress  near  at  hand ;  but 
we  must  not  relax  our  efforts.  Of  what  the  details  of  your  future 
action  shall  be,  it  is  not  my  province  to  speak,  but  I  would  exhort 
you  to  persevere  as  heretofore.  And  I  would  again  say  to  you,  not 
to  mind  the  clamors  which  may  be  raised  about  a  union  of  Church 
and  State.  There  is  no  danger  that  any  one  sect  will  ever  attempt 
to  marry  itself  to  the  State.  Such  an  aj^prehension  would  be  absurd. 
If  ever  the  spirit  or  the  letter  of  the  Constitution  of  the  country 
shall  be  violated  in  this  particular,  it  will  happen,  not  from  any  one 
sect  rising  above  and  lording  it  over  aU  others,  birt  from  the  coali¬ 
tion  of  all  the  others  to  depress,  first  the  weakest  or  most  unpopular, 
and  then  the  next,  and  so  on,  until  finally  a  few  of  the  most  power¬ 
ful  will  arise  and  remain  in  the  ascendant.  It  behoves  you  all,  there¬ 
fore,  and  every  citizen,  to  see  that  all  are  protected  alike — the  weak¬ 
est  as  well  as  the  strongest,  but  the  weakest  especially.  I^o  matter 
what  sect  is  assailed,  extend  to  it,  in  common  with  all  your  fellow 
citizens,  a  protecting  hand.  If  the  Jew  is  oppressed,  then  stand  by 
the  Jew.  [Loud  and  long-continued  cheering.]  Thus  will  all  be 
secured  alike  in  the  common  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  and  the  justly  obnoxious  union  of  Church  and 
State  be  most  effectually  prevented. 

I  wdll  again  recommend  to  you  to  maintain  the  same  spirit  of 
unanimity  and  perseverance  by  which  you  have  heretofore  accom¬ 
plished  so  much.  You  are  not  now  under  the  necessity  of  pleading 
yoitr  cause  before  a  Committee  of  the  Public  School  Society,  com¬ 
monly  known  as  the  Common  Council  of  the  city  of  New  York. 
We  had  all  supposed  that  when  we  presented  ourselves  before  the 
Board  of  Aldermen,  we  really  stood  before  an  impartial,  disinter¬ 
ested  tribunal.  But  it  appears  that  all  the  members  of  the  Common 
Council  are,  ex-officio,  from  the  moment  you  elect  them,  members 
of  the  Public  School  Society.  The  organization  or  composition  of 
this  f50ciety  is  certainly  a  singular  one.  First,  a  certain  number  of 
persons,  who  have  become  members  upon  paying  an  annual  sub¬ 
scription  of  ten  dollars,  elect  fifty  trustees — these  fifty  choose  fifty 
others,  and  then  upon  your  electing  members  of  the  Common  Coun¬ 
cil,  those  members  also  become  trustees ;  and  thus  is  this  Public 
School  Society  constituted.  So  that  in  fact  when  you  went  before 
the  Common  Council  with  your  complaint  of  the  monopoly  of  the 
Public  School  Society,  you  were  preferring  your  petition  to  what 
may  be  considered  as  a  Special  Committee  of  that  very  Society. 
[Laughter.]  But  you  are  no  longer  laboring  under  that  disadvan¬ 
tage.  The  scene  is  now  changed  to  a  higher  and  more  impartial 
tribunal,  where  I  feel  not  even  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  the  spirit 


270 


ARCHBISHOP  HTTGHES. 


of  perseverance  which  you  have  heretofore  manifested,  will  soon  ob¬ 
tain  the  great  object  for  which  you  have  already  so  worthily  and  so 
creditably  exercised  it.  [The  Rt.  Rev.  Prelate  here  sat  down  amid 
loud  cheering,  having  been  frequently  applauded  throughout  the 
delivery  of  his  speech,  in  the  most  enthusiastic  manner.] 


i 


Meeting  in  Carroll  Hall,  October  25,  1841. 

A  MEETING  of  the  “  Church  Debt  Association”  was  held  at  Carroll 
Hall,  on  the  above  date,  and  the  reports  of  the  collectors  having 
been  read,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  addressed  the  meeting  on 
the  subject  of  “  Church  Debt.”  After  which  he  referred  to  the 
School  Question  as  follows : — I  shall  now  call  your  attention  to  an¬ 
other  subject — one  not  precisely  of  a  character  similar  to  that  upon 
which  we  have  met  here,  but  still  a  subject  which  possesses  a  pecu¬ 
liar  interest  for  you  all.  A  notice  had  appeared  in  the  papers,  call¬ 
ing  you  together  for  to-morrow  evening,  at  this  place,  and  this  no¬ 
tice  had  appeared  with  my  consent ;  indeed  it  was  published  by  my 
direction.  But  between  the  time  of  sending  that  notice  for  public¬ 
ation  and  its  appearance,  or  rather  after  its  publication,  measures 
were  taken  in  another  quarter,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  attaining 
the  same  end  which  the  contemplated  meeting  was  designed  to  pro¬ 
mote  ;  and  representations  were  made  to  me  by  which  (without  at 
all  losing  sight  of  the  object,  however)  I  was  persuaded  to  relin¬ 
quish  the  intention  which  I  had  formed  of  holding  the  meeting.  I 
have  therefore  come  to  the  determination  to  postpone  the  meeting 
to  which  I  refer,  in  order  to  see  the  effect  of  the  measures  substi¬ 
tuted  for  it.  You  know  now,  I  presume,  that  I  allude  to  a  question 
of  more  importance  to  you  than  any  other,  the  question  of  the  edu¬ 
cation  of  your  children.  [Great  applause.]  By  the  law  of  the  land, 
education  is  sustained,  and  I  will  say,  properly  sustained,  by  a  gen¬ 
eral  taxation.  We  are  willing  and  able  to  bear  our  proportion  of 
the  taxes  which  are  imposed,  but  we  are  also  anxious  that,  if  we 
bear  the  common  burden,  we  should  share  likewise  in  the  benefits 
which  are  to  be  derived  from  it — that  if  we  cultivate  the  soil  and 
sow  the  seed,  others  should  not  exclusively  partake  of  the  harvest. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  now  what  has  been  said  at  former  times ; 
but  I  will  only  assert,  what  you  are  yourselves  well  convinced  of, 
that  the  public  system  of  education  now  established  amongst  us  has 
been  tainted  from  the  beginning.  And  though  I  am  willing  to  ad 
mit,  as  I  always  have  done  throughout  the  controversy  on  this  sub 
ject,  that  the  men  to  Mhom  the  education  of  the  children  of  this 
community  is  entrusted  are,  in  their  private  characters,  honorable 
benevolent  men,  and  conceive  themselves  to  be  actuated  by  a  disin 
terested  spirit  of  benevolence  in  this  matter,  yet  they  are  under  tin 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


271 


ifluence  of  a  bigotry  which  so  neutralizes  their  perceptions  of  truth 
and  justice  on  the  subject,  that  they  mistake  the  one  for  the  other, 
and  while  dealing  out  something  which  their  bigotry  dictates,  they 
believe  that  they  are  obeying  the  impulses  of  philanthropy.  And  it 
is  this  which  has  in  part  brought  on  those  embarrassments  which 
the  Association  assembled  here  this  eveninsr  is  desiscned  to  relieve 
— for  while  your  children  were  excluded  from  the  public  schools — ■ 
not,  indeed,  by  a  bar  of  iron  placed  across  the  door,  but  by  a  more 
impenetrable  barrier  which  the  internal  constitution  of  the  schools 
presented,  you  were  obliged  to  supply  the  deficiency  as  well  as  you 
could ;  erecting  school-houses  in  connection  with  your  churches,  or 
in  the  basement,  as  the  case  might  be,  and  the  means  thus  expended 
would  have  materially  contributed  to  discharge  the  debts  which 
now  press  upon  those  churches. 

I  am  free  to  admit  that,  when  this  subject  was  first  agitated,  from 
a  kind  of  confidence  in  the  justice  and  liberality  of  men — a  con¬ 
fidence  derived,  perhaps,  from  what  I  felt  to  be  the  impulses  of  my 
own  nature — what  I  would  be  willing  to  do  myself  in  similar  cir- 
aumstances,  and  from  my  knowledge  of  the  justice  of  our  cause,  I 
believed  that  we  had  but  to  submit  our  grievances  to  those  who  had 
the  power,  and  that  they  should  be  redressed.  But  I  was  mis- 
'.aken ;  justice  was  not  regarded — expediency  alone  was  consulted 
— our  claims  were  denied,  not  because  they  were  wanting  in  justice ; 
for  throughout  the  whole  controversy  I  never  met  one,  either  among 
•.he  Aldermen  of  the  city,  or  the  Legislators  to  whom  we  appealed, 
who  denied  the  justice  of  our  application  ;  but  it  was  not  expedient 
—it  was  not  consistent  with  some  peculiar  views  or  objects  that  it 
should  be  granted,  and  we  have  therefore  been  denied.  But  that  is 
rast;  and  now  we  come  to  the  pi’esent  state  of  the  question.  It 
aas  been  my  fortune  to  advocate  this  cause  before  other  tribunals  ; 

have  pleaded  the  cause  of  the  destitute  and  oppressed  children 
before  the  Aldermen  of  this  city ;  I  have  supported  it  in  another 
:  orm  before  the  Senators  of  the  State ;  and  I  have  now  to  plead — 
oefore  -whom?  The  Public  School  Society?  No! — I  have  to 
PLEAD  FOR  IT  BEFORE  THE  Catiiolics  tiiesiselves  !  [Great  and 
reiterated  cheering.]  For  the  time  has  now  come  when  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  learn  their  sentiments,  and  to  know  whether  they  are  willing 
to  vote  for  or  against  it  !  [Renewed  cheering.]  The  question  to  be 
decided  is  not  the  strength  of  party  or  the  emolument  and  patron¬ 
age  of  office,  BUT. A  question  between  the  helpless  and  ill-used 
CHILDREN  AND  THE  PuBLic  ScHOOL  SociETY  !  [Great  and  continued 
applause.]  I  take  my  stand  by  the  children  ;  they  are  my  clients ; 
and  though  they  may  be  deserted  by  their  parents,  their  brothers, 
their  connections  and  friends,  they  shall  still  find  in  me  a  steadfast, 
sincere  and  uncompromising  advocate.  [Vehement  applause.]  You 
yourselves  are  now  to  say  whether  they  shall  be  educated  according 
to  their  birthright  as  American  citizens,  or  be  indoctrinated  with 
that  mental  poison  which  you  cannot  and  will  not,  I  feel  assured, 
allow  them  to  receive;  whether  or  not  they  are  to  be  like  the  chil- 


I 


272 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


dren  of  the  Long  Island  Farms — taken  from  yonr  control  and 
handed  over  to  the  government  and  instruction  of  a  body  over 
whom  you  can  exert  no  influence  or  authority.  The  question  is 
now  submitted,  and  the  judges  are  to  be  yourselves ! 

Under  the  free  and  happy  institutions  of  our  country,  the  power 
to  redress  grievances  and  remedy  abuses  has  not  an  abstract  exist¬ 
ence.  It  is  something  practical — something  that  comes  home  to 
every  individual ;  and  if  any  set  of  men  entrusted  with  authority 
should  molest  and  injure  others  by  the  evil  exercise  of  their  power, 
the  oppressed  have,  in  time,  their  turn  also,  when  they  can  vindi¬ 
cate  their  rights  and  divest  their  oppressors  of  the  authority  which 
they  had  abused.  If  I  am  a  candidate  for  your  suffrages,  I  make 
known  my  principles  and  ask  for  your  support.  You  must  satisfy 
yourselves  that  I  shall  execute  the  office  which  I  may  obtain  so  as 
not  to  invade  the  rights  and  privileges  dear  to  you ;  or  if  I  cannot 
give  you  the  necessary  assurances  on  that  point,  you  will  say  to  me, 
“  You  may  get  the  office  if  you  can,  but  you  cannot  have  it  by  my 
vote.” 

At  the  present  moment  there  is  an  important  issue  made  up  be¬ 
tween  you  and  a  large  portion  of  the  community  on  the  one  side, 
and  that  monopoly  which  instills  those  dangerous  principles  to 
which  I  have  before  alluded  on  the  other.  The  question  lies  be¬ 
tween  the  two  parties,  and  you  are  the  judges ;  and  if  you  desert 
the  cause,  what  can  you  expect  from  strangers  ?  [Loud  cheers.] 
INIy  position  in  this  matter  is  a  peculiar  one — I  stand  alone  and  iso¬ 
lated  in  a  degree — obliged,  as  it  were,  to  step  partially  aside  from 
the  direct  line  of  my  sacred  calling  and  appear  before  you  on  this 
subject.  But  I  have  found  myself  imperatively  called  upon  to  take 
the  position  which  I  have  assumed  for  the  protection  of  the  religious 
rights  of  those  entrusted  to  my  charge.  The  question  is  now  refer¬ 
red  back  to  yourselves  ;  you  may  desert  the  cause ;  you  may  desert 
me;  but  so  long  as  I  can  command  a  hearing  amongst  you  I  shall 
never  abandon  the  ground  which  I  have  taken.  My  duty,  at  least, 
shall  be  performed.  [Tremendous  cheering.] 

Those  with  whom  we  are  at  issue  would  instill  px'inciples  which 
are  not  ours ;  and  though  they  may  be  good  and  beneficial  to  those 
who  can  conscientiously  receive  them,  they  are  not  so  for  us.  We 
are,  in  truth,  placed  in  the  same  situation  as  the  Catholics  were  by 
the  Kildare  Street  Society  in  Ireland,  where,  for  years,  with  their 
proselytizing  schools,  they  tried  the  fidelity  of  that  people,  who 
were  never  known  to  be  recreant  or  unfaithful.  The  cases  are 
almost  identical.  Their  schools  here  are  furnished  with  cojiies  of 
Scriptures  opposed  to  our  version  :  and  this,  with  their  stories  of 
Phelim  Maghee,  their  hymns,  and  their  peculiar  forms  of  prayers, 
are  all  alike  objectionable,  and  at  variance  with  that  love  and  rev¬ 
erence  for  our  faith  and  its  requirements  which  we  would  desire  to 
establish  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  our  children. 

The  Bishop  then  referred  to  the  prospect  of  success  which  the 
future  presented  to  them— the  changes  in  the  minds  of  many  who 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


273 


had  been  hostile,  which  he  had  himself  observed  dviring  his  recent 
progress  through  the  diocese,  and  he  exhorted  them  to  persevere 
with  a  spirit  of  determination  and  self-respect,  and  that  sooner  or 
later  a  triumph  awaited  the  liberal  and  just  principles  which  they 
advocated ;  those  who  were  against  them  should  yield  in  time ; 
for  reflection  only  brought  conviction  to  their  minds  of  the  injustice 
of  the  present  system ;  and  the  day  would  yet  come  when  the  great 
and  growing  mammoth  of  prejudice  and  bigotry,  that  could  bear 
no  rival,  should  yield  to  the  voice  of  reason  and  to  an  awakened 
sense  of  justice  in  the  public  mind.  I  have  been  given  to  under¬ 
stand,  the  Bishop  continued,  that  three  out  of  four  of  the  candidates 
presented  to  your  sutfrages  are  pledged  to  oppose  your  claims,  and 
to  sustain  this  great  and  influential  society.  Though  I  should 
deeply  regret  it,  they  may.  perhaps,  triumph ;  but  all  I  ask  is,  that 
they  shall  not  triumph  by  the  sinful  aid  of  any  individual  who  cher¬ 
ishes  a  feeling  in  common  with  those  children.  This  corporate  body 
to  whom  you  are  opposed,  and  from  whose  insidious  influences  you 
yre  desirous  to  protect  the  principles  of  your  children,  is  in  the  field, 
arrogant  and  exacting  as  ever,  and  I  wish  you,  therefore,  to  look 
well  to  the  men  who  are  your  candidates,  and  though  suitable  in  all 
other  respects,  yet  if  they  are  disposed  to  make  infidels  or  Protest¬ 
ants  of  your  children,  let  them  receive  no  vote  of  yours. 

In  this  case  a  simple  illustration  of  the  part  you  are  called  upon 
to  act  presents  itself  to  my  mind.  I  imagine,  when  these  men  come 
before  you,  that  I  can  see,  in  the  legislative  hall  to  which  they  would 
desire  that  you  should  send  them,  something  like  a  fire,  and  an  iron 
there  red-hot.  Well,  one  of  these  gentlemen  comes  and  requires 
your  vmte  ;  but  suppose  you  ask  him,  what  he  means  to  do  with 
that  red-hot  iron  ?  He  will  be  sure  to  evade  the  question.  He  will 
talk  to  you  of  “  glorious  liberty  and  equality  and  the  sovereign  au¬ 
thority  of  the  people,”  and  all  that ;  but  press  him  for  an  answer. 
Tell  him  you  want  to  know  what  he  intends  to  do  with  that  red-hot 
iron.  [Laughter.]  “Oh,”  he  will  say,  “I  am  a  liberal  man;  I 
intend  to  do  whatever  is  right ;  my  friends,  you  know  me,  do  you 
not?  I  belong  to  the  'party P  [Great  cheering  and  laughter.]  But 
still  press  him  for  an  answer,  and  make  him  tell  you  what  his  ideas 
are  about  the  red-hot  iron.  [Laughter.]  He  will  answer  you  at 
length,  perhaps  ;  and  you  will  then  discover  that  he  had  intended 
with  that  iron  to  brand  “  Ignorance  ”  upon  the  foreheads  of  your 
children.  This  is  the  destiny  to  which  he  Avould  consign  them ;  but 
if  such  is  to  happen,  I  trust  that  you,  at  least,  will  have  no  agency 
in  setting  the  degrading  mark  upon  those  who  look  to  you  as  the 
guardians  of  their  rights,  as  their  sole  protectors  from  the  ignorance 
which  is  forced  upon  them  unless  they  will  consent  to  become  the 
disciples  of  Protestantism  or  infidelity.  [Great  cheering.] 

The  Bishop  then  compared  the  restraint  which  the  Public  School 
System  exercised  on  the  conscience  of  the  Catholics  with  the  op¬ 
pressive  exactions  of  the  English  Church  and  State  policy — an 
odious  tyranny  that  had  brought  misery  on  a  land  that  knew  it  not, 
18 


274 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


but  tliat  now  drank  the  bitter  cup  to  the  dregs,  under  the  8\^ay  of 
that  formidable  and  relentless  oligarchy.  They  say  to  us  here,  con¬ 
tinued  the  Bishop,  as  it  was  said  to  our  forefathers  in  that  sufiering 
land,  “  If  you  are  oppressed,  it  is  not  our  fault ;  we  give  you  the 
value  of  your  money  ;  our  minister  is  at  his  desk,  and  our  doors  are 
open  to  receive  you and  because  we  will  not  avail  ourselves  of  a 
privilege  which  conscience  forbids,  we  are  to  be  told  we  have  no 
right  to  complain.  But  I  trust  that  you  are  too  well  convinced  of 
the  truth  and  justice  of  your  cause  to  falter  now  in  your  determina¬ 
tion  to  seek  redress.  You  should  acknowledge  no  distinction  but 
that  alone  of  the  friend  and  the  enemy  of  a  just  and  liberal  system 
of  education — reduce  it  to  the  simplest  terms  possible — the  friend 
of  the  free  and  unrestricted  education  of  your  children,  and  the  op¬ 
ponent  of  so  noble  a  measure  of  public  right  and  justice ;  and  you 
should  remember  that  if  those  children  whose  cause  I  now  plead 
are  deserted  by  you,  they  must  look  in  vain  for  a  friend.  Why 
should  a  stranger  interest  himself  to  maintain  a  just  principle,  if 
those  for  whose  benefit  it  is  intended  to  operate  should  rebuke  him, 
with  their  neglect  ?  Who  shall  say  a  word  for  a  Catholic,  if  while 
enduring  the  scorn  and  desertion  of  others  he  finds  that  the  Catholic 
abandons  him  too  ?  It  behooves  you,  therefore,  to  have  a  proper 
respect  for  yourselves,  and  to  evince  your  sense  of  the  injustice  done 
to  you  with  dignity,  with  moderation,  and  firmness,  with  a  just 
appreciation  of  your  rights  as  citizens,  and  of  the  rights  of  others, 
and  with  a  cool  but  determined  purpose  to  know  of  no  distinction 
but  that  of  the  friend  and  the  enemy  of  your  children’s  rights. 

The  Kt.  Rev.  Prelate  then  stated  that  he  was  only  anxious  for 
the  adoption  of  whatever  just  and  legal  measures  would  be  most 
likely  to  promote  the  good  of  the  object  which  they  had  at  heart, 
lie  had  therefore  yielded  to  the  representations  which  had  been 
made  to  him,  and  entrusted  it  for  a  time  to  other  hands,  but  he 
had  not  ceased  to  watch  it  as  closely  as  ever.  He  should  observe 
narrowly  the  progress  of  those  other  measures  to  which  he  alluded, 
and  which  were  in  progress.  He  should  see  that  those  who  had  it 
in  charge  should  neither  be  deceived  themselves  nor  deceive  others. 
He  had  nursed  this  cause  until  it  had  attained  to  its  present  import¬ 
ance  ;  his  vigilance  should  not  now  cease ;  and  if  any  danger  should, 
in  his  opinion,  be  approaching,  they  might  expect  a  call  that  would 
be  heard  throughovrt  New  York,  and  that  would  rally  them  in  sup¬ 
port  of  the  great  principle  for  which  they  were  contending.  But 
in  every  event  he  would  tell  them  not  to  forget  to  ask  about  the 
red-hot  iron.  [Laughter.] 

The  Bishop  concluded  amid  the  most  enthusiastic  applause,  and 
the  meeting  adiourned. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


275 


Great  Meeting  of  the  Friends  of  Freedom  of  Education 
in  Carroll  Hall,  October  29th,  1841. 

A  CROWDED  and  biglily  respectable  meeting  of  citizens  favorable 
to  a  just  and  equitable  system  of  Common  Schools  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  was  held  on  the  29th  of  October  at  Carroll  Hall,  in  this 
city,  pursuant  to  public  notice.  At  half-past  seven  the  meeting  was 
called  to  order,  and  on  motion  Gregory  Dillon,  Esq.,  was  called 
to  the  chair,  and  B.  O’Connor  and  E.  Shortill,  Esqrs.,  were  appointed 
Secretaries.  The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  soon  after  entered  the 
meeting,  and  took  his  place  on  the  platform,  amid  the  long,  loud  and 
enthusiastic  greeting  of  the  meeting.  Mr.  O’Connor,  one  of  the 
Secretaries,  read  the  following  requisition  for  the  meeting  from  one 
of  the  public  papers : 

“  School  Question. — A  general  meeting  of  citizens  favorable  to 
such  a  system  of  Common  Schools  in  the  city  of  New  York,  as  will 
extend  the  benefits  of  public  education  to  the  children  of  all  denomi¬ 
nations,  without  trenching  on  the  religious  rights  of  any,  will  be 
held  at  Carroll  Hall,  this  evening,  29th  inst.,  at  half-past  seven 
o’clock.  By  order  of  the  Central  Committee.” 

Bishop  Hughes  then  rose  and  said — 

I  am  delighted,  gentlemen,  to  find  that- the  forlorn  and  neglected 
children  of  the  city  of  New  York  have  yet  so  many  fi-iends  as  I  now 
see  assembled  around  me.  Amidst  the  passions  and  prejudices  of 
public  men,  it  is  still  consoling  to  observe  that  the  rights  of  those 
children  to  the  benefits  of  education  are  advocated  by  so  many 
friends,  and  certainly  if  you  were  to  abandon  them  in  this  emei*- 
gency,  their  prospects  for  the  future  would  be  hopeless.  When  I 
speak  of  their  forlorn  condition  Avith  regard  to  education,  I  do  not 
mean  that  there  are  not  schools  erected,  but  that  those  schools  are 
conducted  under  such  a  system,  and  on  such  principles,  as  necessa¬ 
rily  to  preAmnt  those  children  from  attending  them.  The  conse¬ 
quence  has  been  as  you  know,  that  for  sixteen  years  past,  that  por¬ 
tion  of  our  citizens  represented  by  this  meeting  have  been  obliged 
to  provide  separate  schools,  while  they  Avere  taxed  for  the  support 
of  those  from  Avhose  existence  they  derived  no  benefit. 

Those  facts  determined  the  origin  of  this  question.  Some  have 
supposed  that  the  grievance  had  its  origin  only  with  the  time  when 
the  agitation  and  explanation  of  it  we/e  jmblicly  commenced ;  but 
let  them  look  at  your  efforts  for  years  past  in  iiroviding  education 
,  for  your  children,  and  ask  themselves  whether  you  Avould  haA'e 
gone  to  the  second  expenditure  to  provide  a  defective  and  inefficient 
education  for  your  children  if  you  could  have  permitted  them  to 
attend  the  schools  already  provided. 

But  first  I  must  say  a  few  words  in  explanation  of  my  OAvn  posi¬ 
tion  in  this  matter. 

I  Avas  in  Europe  Avhen  the  question  was  first  brought  before  the 
public,  and  when  I  first  heard  of  its  agitation,  I  believed  that  we 


276 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Lad  but  to  make  a  full,  fair  and  candid  statement  of  our  grievances 
to  honorable  men,  in  order  to  produce  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
injustice  of  (jmploying  the  funds  raised  by  taxing  all  for  the  benefit 
of  a  portion  of  Society,  and  to  the  exclusion  of  one  entire  class. 
[Cheers.]  I  have  atten4ed  in  this  place  and  elsewhere,  meeting 
after  meeting,  during  which  we  have  explained  the  grounds  of  our 
objection  to  the  present  system  of  education.  We  have  uniformly 
avoided  all  questions  of  a  political  character,  and  I  have  more  than 
once  exjiressed  publicly,  as  I  do  now,  my  determination  to  retire 
from  such  meetings  the  moment  any  political  question  was  intro¬ 
duced.  It  is  not  my  province  to  mingle  in  politics.  The  course 
which  I  have  pursued  hitherto  in  this  regard  I  shall  not  abandon 
now,  and  I  have  therefore  to  request  that  you  shall  not  look  for 
forms  here  which  may  be  usual  in  meetings  of  a  political  character, 
but  to  which  I  am  a  stranger,  and  which  I  do  not  desire  to  see  intro¬ 
duced  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  object  which  we  have  in  view. 

The  object  of  this  meeting  is,  after  all  previous  measures  have 
been  adopted,  to  see  what  means  yet  remain  in  your  power  for  at¬ 
taining  the  end  for  which  you  are  contending.  As  to  those  means 
they  may,  it  is  true,  be  unsuccessful — you  may  be  defeated  in  your 
employment  of  them.  A  stronger  power  may  place  a  barrier  be- 
tAveen  you  and  the  accomplishment  of  your  purposes.  But  yet  by 
acting  in  the  matter,  and  using  those  means  which  you  possess,  you 
will  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  although  injustice  may 
triumph,  you  will  have  washed  your  hands  of  all  participation  in  it. 
[Great  and  reiterated  cheering.] 

In  this  as  in  all  other  undertakings,  it  is  necessary  that  you  pro¬ 
ceed  with  firmness  and  perfect  unanimity.  Our  adversaries  accuse 
us  of  acting  with  interested  motives  in  this  matter.  They  say  that 
we  Avant  a  portion  of  the  school  fund  for  sectarian  purposes  to  apply 
it  to  thh  support  and  advancement  of  our  religion.  This  we  deny 
noAv,  as  we  have  done  heretofore.  We  have  denied  it  officially  and 
under  their  own  observation,  and  were  they  careful  or  solicitous  for 
the  truth  of  their  statements  they  would  not  have  made  the  assertion. 
In  this  community  all  religious  denominations  are  supposed  to  be 
equal.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  predominant  religion,  and  the 
small  minority  is  entitled  to  the  same  protection  as  the  greatest  ma- 
jority.  No  denomination  whether  numerous  or  not  can  impose  its 
religious  views  on  a  minority  at  the  common  expense  of  that  minor¬ 
ity  and  itself.  It  was  against  that  we  contended.  That  Avas  the 
principle  from  the  unjust  operation  of  which  AA^e  desired  to  be  re-' 
leased.  And  here  it  may  be  well  to  explain  the  extent  and  limit  of 
our  claim. 

In  this  country  all  things  are  affected  or  decided  by  public  opin¬ 
ion,  and  public  opinion  itself  is  sustained  by  tAvo  opposite  elements 
— truth  and  falsehood.  There  is  nothing  more  poAverful  than  false¬ 
hood,  except  truth  alone.  The  enemies  of  our  claim  were  not  igno¬ 
rant  of  this,  and  therefore  they  have  croAvded  every  avenue  to  public 
opinion  with  mis  epresentations  in  reference  to  it. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION’. 


277 


It  is  therefore  necessary  for  ns  to  have  recourse  to  the  truth  which 
they  suppress  or  disguise.  We  do  not  ask  for  sectarian  schools. 
We  do  not  ask  that  any  portion  of  the  public  money  should  be  con¬ 
fided  to  us  for  purposes  of  education.  We  do  not  ask  for  the  priv 
ilege  of  teaching  our  religion  at  the  public  expense — such  a  demand 
would  be  absurd  and  would  richly  merit  the  rebuke  which  it  could 
not  escape. 

In  the  Public  Schools,  which  were  established  according  to  the 
system  now  in  force,  our  children  had  to  study  books  which  we 
could  not  approve.  Religious  exercises  were  used  which  we  did 
not  recognize,  and  our  children  were  compelled  to  take  part  in  them. 
Then  we  withdrew  them  from  the  schools  and  taught  them  with 
our  own  means.  We  do  not  want  money  from  the  school  funds — ■ 
all  we  desire  is  that  it  be  administered  in  such  a  way  as  to  j)romote 
the  education  of  all.  Now  the  Public  School  Society  has  introduced 
just  so  much  of  religious  and  sectarian  teaching  as  it  pleased  them, 
in  the  plenitude  of  their  irresponsible  character,  to  impart.  They 
professed  to  exclude  religion,  and  yet  they  introduced  so  much  in 
quantity  as  they  thought  proper,  and  of  such  a  quality  as  violated 
our  religious  rights.  If  our  children  cannot  receive  education  with¬ 
out  having  their  religious  faith  and  feelings  modeled  by  the  Public 
School  Society,  then  they  cannot  receive  it  under  the  auspices  of  that 
institution,  and  if  for  these  reasons  they  cannot  receive  it  from  that 
institution,  it  is  tyranny  to  tax  them  for  its  support.  We  do  not 
ask  the  introduction  of  religious  teaching  in  any  public  school,  but 
we  contend  that  if  such  religious  influences  be  brought  to  bear  on 
the  business  of  education,  it  shall  be,  so  far  as  our  children  are  con¬ 
cerned,  in  accordance  with  the  religious  belief  of  their  parents  and 
families. 

If  the  principle  be  correct,  as  contended  for  by  the  advocates  of 
the  present  system,  how  would  the  Protestants  feel  in  France,  where 
they  are  in  a  minority?  Would  they  not  complain  if  the  school 
funds  were  expended  for  the  benefit  of  Catholics  only  ?  Belgium 
too,  is  similarly  situated.  Now  I  would  ask,  gentlemen,  if  they 
could  in  these  cases  approve  of  such  a  principle  ? 

It  is  needless  for  me  to  recapitulate  what  were  the  grounds  which 
we  put  forth.  We  stated  our  objects  candidly  and  respectfully. 
But  the  advocates  of  the  present  system  raised  the  cry  of  sectarian¬ 
ism  against  us.  Misrepresentation  after  misrepresentation  went 
forth  and  produced  their  efiect.  I  have  said  that  there  is  but  one 
thing  stronger  than  misrepresentation,  and  that  is  truth.  But  in 
this  case  truth  was  so  overlaid  by  the  multiplicity  of  these  reckless 
assertions  that  it  was  almost  entirely  lost  sight  of.  [Cheers.] 

I  need  not  refer,  in  corroboration  of  this,  to  the  last  act  of  that 
Society  before  the  honorable  Senate,  when  they  placed  on  the  desk 
of  every  senator  a  vile  fiction  from  the  pages  of  Tristram  Shandy, 
declaring  it  to  set  forth  those  principles  which  it  was  asked  should 
be  propagated  at  the  public  expense.  But  it  did  not  defeat  our 
claim-  on  the  contrary  we  had  reason  to  expect  a  favorable  result 


278 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


from  the  wisdom  and  deliberation  of  that  lionorable  body, — but  time 
was  required  by  those  who  were  strangers  to  the  subject  to  examine 
into  it,  and  then  came  the  close  of  the  session,  and  it  was  in  conse¬ 
quence  postponed  to  another  period. 

By  the  aid  of  such  means  as  I  have  referred  to,  they  have  through¬ 
out  labored  to  defeat  our  application.  When  the  corporation  had 
the  matter  under  consideration,  clergymen  Avere  called  before  the 
Council — statements  and  opinions  were  obtained  from  legal  gentle¬ 
men,  and  all  who  had  information  on  the  subject  were  requested  to 
communicate  it;  but  beyond  and  above  all  this,  slanders  were  re¬ 
sorted  to,  that  the  dominion  of  the  system  might  be  triumphant  and 
perpetual. 

We  have,  it  is  true,  a  poAverful  coalition  to  contend  with.  The 
public  press  has  gone  forth,  teeming  with  misrepresentation,  excit¬ 
ing  odium,  and  endeavoring  to  blacken  our  cause ;  and  not  long 
ago,  too,  their  legal  advocate  undertook  to  strengthen  their  position 
by  his  appeal  to  the  prejudices  of  the  public  mind, — but  in  that, 
also,  he  has  signally  failed.  Out  of  their  OAvn  circle  of  friends,  their 
influence  has  not  been  much  felt.  It  is  acknoAvledged  by  gentlemen 
opposed  to  us  in  religion,  that  our  claim  is  rightful,  and,  if  perse- 
A'ered  in,  must  be  successful.  [Cheers.]  And,  I  have  the  pleasure 
to  assure  you,  that  however  bigotry  and  intolerance  may  prevail,  it 
is  not  universal.  There  is  a  feeling  in  our  favor,  not  among  the 
laity  only,  but  even  among  many  of  the  clergy  of  other  denomina¬ 
tions  there  are  men  AA^ho  acknowledge  the  justice  of  our  cause,  and 
contend  Avith  us  that  it  is  Avise  policy  to  diffuse  the  blessing  of  edu¬ 
cation  to  the  extent  of  the  entire  population.  [Cheers.] 

Bishop  Hughes  here  spoke  of  the  incalculable  benefits  to  be  deriA^- 
ed  from  a  radical  modification  of  the  Public  School  system,  and 
continued — We  now  pass  from  the  second  stage  to  the  consideration 
of  the  present  position  of  the  questioiu  We  first  laid  our  case  be¬ 
fore  the  Common  Council.  They  disposed  of  it  in  a  manner  with 
which  you  are  familiar.  We  then  applied  to  the  Legislature.  It  is 
noAV  in  the  order  of  things  to  be  referred  to  yourselves.  [Cheers.] 
But  hoAV  deeply  is  the  question  covered  over  !  hoAv  followed  up  by 
other  questions !  how  gigantic  the  influences  Avhich  Lave  been  em¬ 
ployed  to  arrange  the  matter  in  such  a  way  that  you  could  not  choose 
for  yourselves — that  you  Avould  be  left  no  alternative  but  to  select 
friends  of  the  present  system !  [Cheers.]  You  are  noAV  to  decide 
wliether  your  children  shall  be  educated  as  others  shall  prescribe — 
receiA'e  instruction  from  snch  books  as  are  repugnant  to  your  reli- 
ious  feelings,  and  whether  you  shall  be  constrained  to  give  your 
voice  in  favor  of  those  who  Avould  perpetuate  such  a  state  of  things. 
And  here  see  the  effect  of  our  admirable  system  of  laAVS.  We  have 
it  in  our  own  power  to  remedy  the  evils  of  Avhich  Ave  complain.  It 
may  truly  be  said  to  be  a  government  of  the  people — based  as  it  is 
on  just  and  adequate  representations,  founded  on  a  principle  in 
Avhich  there  is  an  implied  contract,  or  Avhat  may  be  called  an  implied 
contract  between  the  voter  and  the  voted  for.  But  in  relation  to 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


279 


the  candidates  who  have  been  placed  in  nomination  for  your  suffrage 
at  the  present  time,  mark  the  cunning  of  the  gentlemen  opposed  to 
you.  They  have  so  managed  it  that  those  candidates,  if  elected, 
would  go  to  the  Legislature  pledged  to  oppose  your  claim,  so  that 
when  the  representatives  are  assembled  at  Albany,  it  may  be  said 
that  if  you  vmted  at  all  you  voted  in  favor  of  that  to  which  it 
has  been  said  you  were  opposed — that  you  were  satislied  with  the 
schools  of  the  Public  School  Society  as  they  are, — that  in  your  judg¬ 
ment  those  schools  inculcate  the  proper  amount  of  moral  precept,  and 
religion  as  we  were  once  told,  in  just  the  “  legal  quantity.”  [Cheering 
and  laughter.]  The  time,  then,  has  now  arrived,  when  the  fathers  and 
the  brothers  and  the  uncles  of  the  children  who  ai'e  excluded  from 
those  jmblic  schools  should  pass  judgment  on  the  evils  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  system.  There  are  those  who  overlooking  the  evils  of  which  we 
complain,  speak  of  it  as  a  system  admirably  calculated  to  ditfuse  the 
benefits  of  education,  with  its  one  hundred  schools,  its  three  hundred 
teachers,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  per  year.  It 
may  be  and  no  doubt  is  so  for  those  who  may  be  permitted  to  enjoy 
the  advantages  which  it  affords — to  us  they  are  of  no  benefit.  But 
you  are  accused  of  not  being  sincere  in  your  objections,  and  notwith¬ 
standing  the  fact  of  your  being  obliged  to  supply  and  to  suffer  under 
the  inconvenience  of  a  miserable  and  defective  system  of  your  own, 
they  assert  that  you  were  perfectly  satisfied  with  their  schools  until 
I,  or  some  other,  undertook  to  excite  your  discontent  and  that  the 
objections  which  were  made  were  entertained  principally  by  the 
clergymen.  The  absurdity  of  such  statements,  however,  is  so 
apparent  as  to  need  no  refutation.  Why,  I  may  ask,  do  you  resort 
to  poor  schools  to  educate  your  children  and  to  a  farther  tax  upon 
your  private  means  after  paying  your  contribution  to  the  public 
fund,  if  you  have  not  cause  of  complaint.  [Cheers.] 

There  is  another  view  of  this  question  which  it  is  prudent  not  to 
overlook.  It  is  this — you  may  observe  that  if  a  public  man  should 
advocate  your  cause,  that  man  immediately  receives  a  reproof  from 
the  friends  of  the  present  system  ;  he  is  certain  to  encounter  all  the 
animosity  of  personal  and  embittered  opposition.  Both  here  and  in 
Albany,  if  a  man  stands  up  for  your  rights,  he  is  marked  and  frowned 
upon.  What  is  the  object  of  the  efforts  made  to  blast  men  who  ad¬ 
vocate  your  just  claims  ?  Is  it  because  enmity  is  felt  towards  them? 
No  !  it  is  not  that  alone.  But  it  is  to  teach  all  public  men  this  les¬ 
son  for  the  future — that  it  is  dangerous  to  befriend  you  ! — that  they 
must  not  stand  up  for  justice  when  justice  is  not  popular.  [Tremendous 
cheers.]  It  is  intended  to  be  a  beacon — a  warning — to  public  men, 
who  dare  raise  their  voice  in  behalf  of  an  oppressed  class  of  society, 
that  when  they  do  so  they  may  expect  their  downfall.  [Great  and 
renewed  applause.] 

But  I  call  upon  you  to  resist  this  Public  School  System,  whether 
you  are  sustained  by  public  men  or  not.  You  are  called  upon  to 
join  with  your  oppressors,  and  they  leave  you  no  alternative  in  vot¬ 
ing.  It  n\ay  appear  uncommon — it  may  seem  to  be  inccmsistent 


280 


ATlCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


with  my  character  that  I  should  thus  take  an  interest  in  tliis  matter  ; 
and  1  should  not,  were  it  not  a  subject  of  extraordinary  import.  But 
there  has  been  an  invasion  of  your  religious  rights,  and,  as  the  spir¬ 
itual  guariian  of  those  now  before  me,  I  am  bound  to  help  their 
cause.  If  you  are  taxed,  you  must  be  protected.  [Cheers.]  Were 
the  tax  S3  imposed  that  each  denomination  might  receive  the 
benefits  of  its  own  quota,  the  case  would  be  fair  enough.  We  are 
willing  to  have  any  system  that  operates  equally  ;  but  we  will  never 
submit  to  a  direct  violation  of  our  rights,  and  an  appropriation  of 
the  school  fund  in  such  a  manner  that  we  may  not  participate  in  its 
benefits.  Though  our  opponents  may  now  succeed,  that  will  not 
end  our  resistance.  We  will  continue  to  interrogate  the  candidates 
as  to  whether  they  intend  to  oppress  our  children.  We  will  ask 
them  if  they  mean  to  perpetuate  the  present  system ;  and  if  so,  we  will 
say  to  them,  “  You  may  go  to  the  Legislature,  but  others  wfill  have  to 
send  you,  not  we.”  [Long-continued  cheers.]  Be  not  ashamed  of  so 
doing,  for  who  will  be  your  friends,  if  you  are  not  true  to  yourselves? 
Act  for  yourselves,  and  you  will  have  a  shield  of  protection. 

You  are  called  upon  to  use  that  protective  shield,  for  how  can 
representatives  be  more  friendly  to  you  than  you  are  to  yourselves  ? 
How  can  you  expect  men  to  stand  up  for  you,  when  the  very  per¬ 
sons  who  become  advocates  of  your  cause  are  marked  out  to  be 
neglected,  dropped  and  despised  even  by  the  people  for  whom  they 
risked  their  reputation  ?  How  can  you  expect  another  man  to  do 
right  merely  for  your  sake  ?  There  is  but  one  course  for  you  to 
take  :  stand  up  for  yourselves,  and,  I  will  be  bound  for  it,  public 
men  will  soon  come  to  your  aid  !  [Loud  and  long-continued  cheer- 
ing.] 

Experience  tells  us  that  to  all  the  great  questions  agitated  in  this 
country,  there  are  two  sides  ;  and  in  the  history  of  this  one  we  have 
evidence  of  the  fact.  I  do  not  consider  the  question  as  it  regards 
parties  or  men.  I  only  speak  for  and  advocate  the  freedom  of  ed¬ 
ucation  and  the  men  who  stand  up  for  it.  I  appear  as  the  friend  of 
him  who  would  give  justice  to  all  classes.  [Cheers.] 

We  have  entirely  kept  out  of  sight  all  mere  party  distinctions, 
and  have  looked  among  public  men  for  those  who  had  just  views  of 
what  we  regard  as  our  undeniable  rights.  We  have  now  resolved  to 
give  our  sufirage  in  favor  of  no  man  who  is  an  enemy  to  us  and 
the  recognition  of  those  rights,  and  to  support  every  friend  we  can 
find  among  men  of  all  political  parties.  [Great  applause.]  Among  the 
candidates  nominated  upon  one  side,  we  could  find  but  one  advocate 
and  he  a  tried  friend.  As  a  public  man  he  dared  to  do  what  he  con¬ 
ceived  to  be  his  duty  ;  we  can  never  cease  to  remember  the  friendly 
act  of  that  distinguished  gentlemen.  [Thunders  of  applause.]  We 
were  in  his  case  determined  to  show  that  we  were  not  incapable  of 
gratitude,  and  to  hold  out  the  inducement  to  any  other  individual  in 
his  situation,  that  if  he  supposed  he  risked  some  blame  for  advocat¬ 
ing  our  cause,  we  would  never  apply  to  hiih  the  scorpion  whip  of 
political  ingratitude.  [The  most  deafening  applause.]  W^hen  ingrati- 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


281 


tude  was  discovered  in  a  man’s  associates  it  was  painful  enougli,  but 
when  coming  from  men,  for  whose  welfare  and  rights  the  penalty  of 
public  censure  had  been  bravely  risked,  there  was  in  the  chastise¬ 
ment  a  bitterness  which  could  not  be  described.  That  gentleman 
has  thought  proper  to  decline  his  nomination,  and  excepting  his  we 
do  not  lind  one  solitary  name  of  an  individual  on  that  side,  who 
has  not  been  proclaimed  as  pledged  and  bound  to  protect  the  pre¬ 
sent  oppressive  system  of  which  we  complain.  And  can  you  vote 
for  such  individuals?  ISTo!  You  are  for  once  to  stand  up  for  your¬ 
selves  ;  for  neither  in  honor  nor  in  principle,  nor  in  conscience,  can 
you  now  vote  for  those  whom  you  already  know  are  prepared  to  do 
you  injury.  [Vociferous  applause.]  Let  me  illustrate  your  position 
by  supposing  a  case.  If  there  be  a  street  to  be  run  in  a  certain  direc¬ 
tion  of  the  city,  and  its  course,  if  adopted,  will  invade  your  property 
and  destroy  your  house,  on  which  you  have  expended  your  fortune, 
and  if  this  matter  await  the  final  determination  of  men  to  be  appoint¬ 
ed  to  office  by  your  vote,  and  if  they  expressly  declare  that  they  ap¬ 
prove  of  this,  to  you,  ruinous  measure,  should  you  give  them  your 
vote  ?  If  you  wmuld,  your  case  would  demand  no  sympathy — you 
yourself  exercise  your  franchise  for  the  purpose  of  electing  to  high 
places  men  predetermined  to  act  contrary  to  your  wishes,  and  in¬ 
volve  you  in  ruin,  for  which  in  such  circumstances  you  could 
never  justly  claim  reparation.  [Great  applause.]  But  you  are 
determined  to  act  in  no  such  manner.  You  have  resolved  to  vote 
for  no  man  who  is  a  determined  enemy  to  your  views  of  this  question. 
[Renewed  and  deafening  applause.] 

This  is  all.  We  go  no  farther.  With  political  controversies  and 
party  questions  I  have  nothing  whatever  to  do.  Such  considera¬ 
tions  enter  not  into  anything  with  w^hich  I  am  conceimed.  But  by 
my  ‘authority  the  only  means  left  us  to  obtain  justice  have  been 
sought,  and  this  organization  effected.  The  representatives  of  the 
neglected  portion  of  the  children  in  the  various  parts  of  the  city 
have  met,  and  have  all  united  for  the  purpose  of  arranging  a  plan 
by  which  they  may  escape  the  miserable  alternative  of  voting  for 
their  enemies,  and  they  have  prepared  a  ticket  bearing  on  it  the 
names  of  men  who  are  all  known  as  favourable  to  your  cause. 
[Great  cheering.]  We  do  not,  indeed,  entertain  any  hojies  beyond 
what  wm  are  authorized  to  cherish,  that  these  candidates  will  be 
elected.  But  at  all  events  'we  shall  not  be  chargeable  with  the  ab¬ 
surdity  of  voting  for  men  who  are  determined  to  use  the  influence 
given  them  by  our  vo1?es  to  deprive  us  continually  of  the  right 
which  we  claim.  [Great  applause.] 

The  persons  wdio  have  opposed  us  have  laid  their  measures  well. 
They  can  use  the  public  press.  They  can  multiply  misrepresentation. 
And  what  witli  their  great  wealth,  and  admitted  respectability  and 
powerful  influence,  they  can  purchase  into  their  service  everything 
except  one  thing — the  unpurchasable  votes  of  their  victims.  [Tremen¬ 
dous  cheering.]  That  yet  remains  in  our  possession.  And,  now,  come 
what  may,  one  thing  I  do  expect,  and  that  not  only  from  those 


282 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


immediately  representing  this  neglected  portion  of  the  futiTre 
population  of  New  York,  hut  also  from  liberal  men  cf  other  denom¬ 
inations,  that  they  will  not  support  men  who  are  our  declared  ene¬ 
mies — known  to  be  hostile  to  our  cause.  And  now  let  me  tell  you 
for  your  encouragement,  that  gentlemen  not  at  all  connected  with 
us  in  religion — who  differ  with  us  entirely  on  that  subject — biat  who 
understand  the  nature  of  this  question  and  know  the  justice  of  our 
claims,  have  determined  that  they  too  will  vote  that  ticket  wdiich  we 
ha’s^e  prepared.  [Great  applause.]  They  have  seen  that  our  wrongs 
are  not  merely  abstractions — that  they  are  rea*!  and  demand  redress 
— and  that  the  free  and  independent  exercise  of  our  elective  fran¬ 
chise  is  the  only  shield  left  us,  and  when  they  see  you  exercising  the 
right  of  the  freeman,  as  the  freeman,  and  not  as  the  slave,  they  will 
come  to  your  aid,  and  respect  and  assist  you  in  your  struggles,  and 
friends  where  you  would  never  have  dreamed  of  them,  will  arise 
and  plead  your  cause.  [Deafening  cheers.] 

It  is  impossible  for  me  to  say  anything  personally  of  those  whose 
names  have  been  recommended  to  be  placed  on  the  list  of  candidates, 
and  I  would  not  for  one  moment  urge  that  they  should  be  placed 
there,  had  I  not  been  assured,  on  the  most  positive  evidence  and 
which  I  could  not  doubt,  that  they  are  friendly  to  an  alteration  in  the 
present  system  of  public  education.  I  know  that  some  of  them,  it  is 
said,  are  opposed  to  us.  But  again  I  have  been  assured  by  gentle¬ 
men  who  spoke  from  their  own  personal  knowledge — some  speaking 
for  one  candidate,  some  for  another, — that  by  public  and  recorded 
acts,  or  authorized  declarations,  all  of  them,  aye,  all  of  them,  can  be 
depended  on  as  determined,  should  they  by  your  votes  be  elected  to 
the  position  in  which  they  can  decide  on  this  question,  to  support 
the  justice  of  our  claims.  [Tremendous  applause.]  If,  however,  it 
should  happen,  that  we  discover  we  are  mistaken  in  any  of  them, 
and  if  after  taking  him  for  a  friend,  contrary  to  all  assurances  we  have 
received,  we  find  him  an  opponent  of  our  measures,  then  he  has  the 
easy  remedy — he  can  write  to  the  papers,  and  say  we  used  his  name 
without  authority.  [Cheers.]  If  any  of  the  gentlemen  named  take 
this  course  we  can  supply  his  place.  And  I  conceive  that  he  shall 
be  bound  in  honor  to  do  so — if  we  have  been  mistaken  in  him  he  is 
bound  to  declare  it  and  not  perpetuate  the  deception.  [Cheers.] 
Before  I  call  on  the  secretary  to  read  the  ticket,  I  will  simply  say, 
gentlemen,  that  the  decision  of  this  night  on  it,  is  to  be  final,  and 
without  any  expression  of  individual  opinion  as  to  the  merits  and 
demerits  of  those  names,  which  will  be  read.  As  I  already  remarked, 
I  am  not  acquainted  with  any  of  these  individuals ;  but  they 
have  been  selected  by  gentlemen  as  much  interested  in  this  question 
as  I  am  ;  and  now,  gentlemen,  if  you  are  unanimously  determined 
to  convince  this  community  that  you  are  sincere,  and  really  in  earn¬ 
est — that  you  sincerely  feel  that  there  is  a  bona  fide  grievance  of 
which  you  complain  and  wish  redressed,  you  will  support  the 
candidates  thus  offered  for  your  choice,  because  if  you  do  not  you 
have  no  alternative  left  but  that  of  voting  for  the  declared  enemies  of 


THE  SCHOOL  QHESTIOJf. 


283 


vour  right  s.  I  will  now  request  the  secretary  to  read  the  names 
placed  on  the  ticket,  of  that  ticket  I  have  approved.  It  presents  the 
names  of  the  only  friends  we  could  find  already  before  the  public 
and  those  whom,  not  being  so  prominently  before  the  public,  we 
have  found  for  ourselves. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  following  list : — Senators,  Thomas 
O’Connor,  J.  G.  Gottsberger ;  Assembly,  Tighe  Davey,  Daniel  C. 
Pentz,  George  Weir,  Paul  Grout,  Conrad  Swackhammer,  William 
B.  MacLay,  David  R.  F.  Jones,  Solomon  Townsend,  John  L. 
O’Sullivan,  Auguste  Davizac,  William  McMurray,  Michael  Walsh, 
Timothy  Daly.  Each  name  was  received  with  the  most  deafening 
and  uproarious  applause,  and  three  terrific  cheers  were  given  at  the 
close  on  the  subsidence  of  which  the  Bishop  proceeded. 

You  have  now,  gentlemen,  heard  the  names  of  men  who  are  will- 
mg  to  risk  themselves  in  si;pport  of  your  cause.  Put  these  names 
out  of  view,  and  you  cannot,  in  the  lists  of  our  political  candidates, 
find  that  of  one  solitary  public  man  who  is  not  understood  to  be 
pledged  against  us.  What,  then,  is  your  course?  You  now,  for  the 
first  time,  find  yourselves  in  the  position  to  vote  at  least  for  your¬ 
selves.  You  have  often  voted  for  others,  and  they  did  not  vote  for 
you,  but  now  you  are  determined  to  uphold  with  your  own  votes, 
your  own  rights.  [Thunders  of  applause,  which  lasted  several  min¬ 
utes.]  Will  you  then  stand  by  the  rights  of  your  ofikpring,  who 
have  for  so  long  a  period,  and  from  generation  to  generation,  sufiered 
under  the  operation  of  this  injurious  system  ?  [Renewed  cheering.] 
Will  you  adhere  to  the  nomination  made  ?  [Loud  cries  of  “  we  will,” 
“  we  will,”  and  vociferous  applause.]  Will  you  be  united  ?  [Tre¬ 
mendous  cheering — the  whole  immense  assembly  rising  en  masse, 
waving  of  hats,  handkerchiefs,  and  every  possible  demonstration  of 
applause.]  Will  you  let  all  men  see  that  you  are  worthy  sons  of  the 
nation  to  which  you  belong?  [Cries  of  “Never  fear — we  will!” 
“  We  will  till  death  !”  and  terrific  cheering.]  Will  you  prove  your¬ 
selves  worthy  of  friends  ?  [Tremendous  cheering.]  Will  none  of 
you  flinch  ?  [The  scene  that  followed  this  emphatic  query  is  inde¬ 
scribable,  and  exceeded  all  the  enthusiastic,  and  almost  frenzied  dis¬ 
plays  of  passionate  feeling  we  have  sometimes  witnessed  at  Irish 
meetings.  The  cheering — the  shouting — the  stamping  of  feet — ■ 
waving  of  hats  and  handkerchiefs,  beggared  all  powers  of  descrip¬ 
tion.]  Very  well,  then,  the  tickets  will  be  prepared  and  distributed 
amongst  you,  and  on  the  day  of  election  go  like  freemen,  with  dig¬ 
nity  and  calmness,  entertaining  due  resj^ect  for  your  fellow-citizens 
and  their  opinions,  and  deposit  your  votes.  And  if  you  do  not  elect 
any  of  your  friends,  you  wfill  at  least  record  your  votes  in  favor  of 
justice,  and  in  favor  of  your  principles,  which  must  not — cannot  be 
abandoned,  and  you  will  be  guiltless  of  the  sin  and  shame  and  deg¬ 
radation  of  electing  men  who  are  pledged  to  trample  on  you  if  they 
can  !  [Great  cheering.]  I  care  not  for  party  men — their  professions 
— their  cliques — and  all  that.  Bring  them  to  the  test,  and  you  find 
great  promises — lean  performances.  It  is  time  that  you  should  con- 


284 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


vince  them  that  you,  the  interested  parties  in  this  great  question, 
you  the  denizens  of  a  nation  proverbially  faithful  to  every  engage¬ 
ment — you  will  convince  them  at  least,  and  perhaps  for  the  first 
time,  that  you  are  not  the  pliant  tools  they  mistake  you  to  be ! 
[Loud  cheering.]  You  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  men  who 
go  to  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  pledged  to  act  against  you  ?  [Loud 
cries  of  “  no,  no,  no “  that  we  wont !”  and  great  cheering.]  They 
may  find  votes  enough  to  send  them — [a  voice,  “  no,  they  shan’t !”] 
let  them  go !  But  they  will,  in  that  case,  be  obliged  to  confess  that 
they  were  sent  by  your  enemies — let  them  do  the  work  of  their  mas¬ 
ters  !  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  I  ask  then,  once  for  all — and  with 
the  answer  let  the  meeting  close — will  this  meeting  pledge  its  honor, 
as  the  representative  of  that  oppressed  portion  of  our  community, 
for  whom  I  have  so  often  pleaded,  here  as  well  as  elsewhere — will 
it  pledge  its  honor  that  it  will  stand  by  these  candidates  whose 
names  have  been  read,  and  that  no  man  composing  this  vast  audi¬ 
ence  will  ever  vote  for  any  one  pledged  to  oppose  our  just  claims 
and  incontrovertible  rights?  [Terrific  cheering  and  thunders  of 
applause,  which  continued  for  several  minutes,  amid  which  Bishop 
Hughes  resumed  his  seat.] 

Silence  having  been  at  length  restored,  the  ticket  was  adopted  by 
acclamation,  and  the  immense  assemblage  adjourned  in  the  most 
peaceful  and  orderly  manner. 


ADDRESS  TO  BISHOP  HUGHES.- HIS  REPLY. 


Great  Meeting  at  ‘Washington  Hall  of  Catholics  and  others 
favorable  to  an  alteration  in  the  present  Public  School 
System,  November  16th,  1841. 

“The  public  mind,  for  two  weeks  past,”  says  the  Freeman's 
Journal  of  Nov.  20th,  1841,  “has  been  plied  on  the  subject  of  Bishop 
Hughes  and  the  School  Question,  with  every  description  of  news¬ 
paper  rhetoric,  from  the  dull  calumnies  of  the  hyjiocritical  Sun^  and 
the  worthless  outpourings  of  a  still  lower  and  more  malignant 
vehicle,  to  the  frantic  falsehoods  of  the  New  Era^  the  Journal  of  Com¬ 
merce^  the  Commercial,  and  other  similar  organs  of  bigoted  cliques 
and  interested  politicians.  No  vengeance  seemed  too  heavy  to  be 
invoked  by  those  pure  and  moral  censors  upon  the  head  of  him  who 
had  warned  a  people,  whom  he  w^as  bound  to  protect,  to  beware  of 
the  political  leaders  who  had  become  the  partisans  of  an  intolerant 
monopoly,  notorious  as  the  irreconcilable  foe  of  their  and  their  chil¬ 
dren’s  rights.  A  clamorous  outcry  of  proscription  and  denuncia- 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOJT. 


285 


tion  was  raised,  such  as  liad  never  before,  perhaps,  been  witnessed 
in  this  city.  ‘The  State  was  in  danger’ — ‘the  Bishop  was  aiming 
at  tlie  subversion  of  the  Constitution,  and  effecting  a  union  between 
the  State  Government  and  the  Catholic  Cliurch.’  These  and  many 
other  allegations  were  daily  and  hourly  sent  abroad  upon  the  wings 
of  the  press ;  and  the  affrighted  public  had  many  grave  homilies 
and  prophetic  warnings  read  them  on  the  subject  of  the  dread  feuds 
and  murderous  outbreaks  that  would  inevitably  ensue,  if  the  Catho¬ 
lics  would  not  submit  to  let  their  children  be  taught  either  Protest¬ 
antism  or  infidelity,  as  it  should  please  the  Public  School  Society,  in 
the  plenitude  of  its  wisdom  and  benevolence,  to  decree.  Another 
string  was  harped  upon,  too — the  Catholics  were  addressed  by  the 
several  organs  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  who  seemed  to  have  just  made 
the  discovery  that  there  was  a  great  body  of  intelligent  and  liberal- 
minded  Catholics  in  the  city,  and  these  the  monopolists  declared, 
in  the  most  self-satisfied  manner,  would  not,  they  were  sure,  sustain 
the  Bishop — he  was  utterly  alone,  if  the  veracious  sooths.ayers  were 
to  be  believed.  But  an  early  check  was  given  to  the  delusion. 
TwETT-TWO  HUi^DRED  FREE  AND  INDEPENDENT  VOTERS,  breaking 
loose  from  the  trammels  of  party  attachment,  and  giving  their  suf¬ 
frages  to  the  INDEPENDENT  TICKET  that  was  only  nominated  four  days 
•previous  to  the  election^  startled  the  calumniators  and  exposed  to  the 
world  how  baseless  were  all  their  accusations,  and  how  impotent 
were  all  their  threats  and  denunciations.  But  the  fiiends  of  justice 
and  equal  rights,  aud  especially  the  Catholic  citizens  of  Hew  York, 
were  determined  to  give,  if  possible,  a  still  more  emphatic  denial  to 
the  extravagant  absurdities  that  were  so  wildly  propagated.” 

A  meeting  was  held  at  Washington  Hall  on  IGth  November,  for 
the  purpose  of  expressing  entire  approbation  of  the  course  pur¬ 
sued  by  Bishop  Hughes  on  the  School  Question.  At  half-past  seven 
o’clock  the  large  room  was  filled  to  overflowing.  There  were  from 
three  to  four  thousand  persons  present,  and  a  more  enthusiastic  and 
unanimous  meeting  was  never  witnessed.  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq., 
was  called  to  the  chair,  by  acclamation.  The  following  gentlemen 
were  unanimously  appointed  as  vice-presidents  :  Francis  Cooper, 
Bernard  Graham,  Felix  Ingoldsby,  John  B.  Lasala,  John  Quin,  John 
McNulty,  Peter  McLaughlin,  Terrence  Donnelly,  P.  A.  Hargous, 
John  Milhau,  J.  G.  Fendi,  P.  S.  Casserly,  Gregory  Dillon,  John 
McMenomy,  Hugh  Kelly,  James  Kerrigan,  Dr.  II.  Sweeny,  Tighe 
Davy,  Andrew  Carrigan,  Peter  Murray,  .James  W.  White,  J.  G.  Gotts- 
berger,  Peter  Duffy,  Owen  McCabe,  Dennis  Mullens,  Robert  McKeon, 
James  dwell,  John  Mullen,  Joseph  O’Conner,  Daniel  Major. 

liartholomew  O’Connor,  Edward  Shortill  and  Edmund  S.  Derry, 
Esqs.,  were  appointed  secretaries  of  the  meeting.  The  call  of 
the  meeting  having  been  read,  the  following  gentlemen  were 
appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  resolutions  expressive  of  the 
sense  of  the  meeting,  in  reference  to  the  object  for  which  they  had 
assembled,  and  to  prepare  an  address  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop 
Hughes,  viz.:  Messrs.  James  W.  White,  B.  O’Connor,  aud  Edward 


286 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Sliortill.  These  gentlemen  accordingly  withdrew  for  the  purpose  of 
fulfilling  the  duties  of  their  appointment.  During  their  absence, 
the  meeting  was  eloquently  addressed  by  the  president,  Thomas 
O’Connor,  Esq.,  and  by  Dr.  Plugh  Sweeny.  When  the  committee 
returned,  B.  O’Connor,  Esq.,  came  forward  and  submitted  a  pream¬ 
ble  and  resolutions,  the  reading  of  which  elicited  frequent  and 
hearty  cheering. 

After  the  resolutions  were  read,  James  W.  White  submitted,  on 
behalf  of  the  committee,  and  read  to  the  meeting,  the  following 
Address  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  : 

Rt.  Rev.  Sir  : 

A  numerous  body,  consisting  of  thousands  of  your  fellow- 
citizens,  friends  of  free  and  universal  education,  and  favorable  to  an 
alteration  in  the  present  Public  School  System  of  the  city  of  hiew 
York,  have  assembled  this  day  at  Washington  Hall,  to  take  into 
consideration  recent  events  connected  with  the  subject.  Plaving 
adopted  resolutions  declaratory  of  their  determination  to  adhere  to 
the  principles  by  which  they  are  actuated,  they  now  desire,  Rt. 
Rev.  Sir,  to  convey  to  you  a  direct  and  earnest  expression  of  their 
unwavering  confidence  in  your  judgment,  zeal,  and  acknowledged 
ability ;  and  to  testify,  thus  publicly,  to  the  respect  which  the  fear¬ 
less,  independent,  and  judicious  course  that  you  have  pursued  in  re¬ 
lation  to  this  vital  question  of  education,  has  excited  in  their  minds. 
For  more  than  one  year  past  you  had  been  laboriously  engaged  in 
advocating  the  principle  of  eqnal  justice  to  all  classes,  in  the  adniki- 
istration  of  a  system  of  education  to  the  support  of  which  all  classes 
had  contrihuted.  But  until  of  late  there  had  not  arisen  any  circum¬ 
stances  that  would  call  for  a  special  public  avowal  of  approbation  of 
your  great  and  efficient  services  in  behalf  of  the  poor  and  destitute 
children  of  New  York.  Throughout  the  whole  course  of  agitation 
on  this  subject,  you  possessed  the  consciousness  that  you  were  dis¬ 
charging  a  high  and  imperative  duty.  This  alone  would  have  been 
esteemed  by  you  a  sufficient  rew'ard,  and  the  only  sanction  that  you 
wmuld  have  required  to  sustain  you  in  your  efforts.  But,  at  the 
same  time,  we  felt  assured  that  you  could  not  doubt  of  the  approba- 
tian,  sympathy  and  gratitude  of  those  who  were  the  constant  wit¬ 
nesses  to  your  zeal  and  devotion,  and  who  have,  in  all  things,  co¬ 
operated  with  you  in  seeking  a  redress  of  the  serious  grievance 
w  hich  the  odious  restrictive  system  of  public  education  in  the  city 
of  New  York  had  imposed  upon  a  large  class  of  citizens.  Recent 
events,  however,  require  that  we  should  noio  publicly  express  that 
which  we  have  always  felt,  and  never  felt  more  strongly  than  at  the 
present  time.  The  Public  School  Society  of  New  York,  whose 
intolerant,  usurping,  and  proselytizing  spirit  you  have  often  exposed 
with  so  much  justice  and  efficiency,  endeavored,  by  itself  or  its  ad¬ 
herents,  AVhen  the  late  election  Avas  approaching  in  this  city,  to  over- 
UAve  the  leaders  of  the  political  parties,  and  compel  a  nomination  of 
o.ar((tid.attis  for  the  State  Legislature,  wdio,  if  not  pledged,  should  at 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTIOIC, 


287 


least  be  distinctly  understood  as  favorable  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
monopoly  of  the  Society  in  all  its  odious  prerogatives.  The  polit¬ 
ical  leaders  feared  to  encounter  the  wealth  and  fnliuence  of  this 
corporate  body,  and,  almost  to  a  man,  yielded  to  the  demand  that 
was  made  upon  them.  This  proscriptive  and  unholy  league  reduced 
the  friends  of  justice  and  of  a  republican  system  of  education  to  the 
alternative  of  either  abandoning  the  exercise  of  their  inalienable 
right  of  franchise,  or  else,  by  exercising  it,  to  elevate  to  office  men 
who  had  determined  to  use  the  power  which  that  office  would  confer 
for  the  destruction  of  the  rights  of  those  to  whom  they  might  owe 
their  elevation.  From  this  alternative  there  was  but  one  means  of 
escape  it  was  one  of  which  no  fkeemajst  could  hesitate,  under  the 
circumstances  to  avail  himself ;  it  was  the  foriiatiox  of  a  sepa¬ 
rate  AXD  independent  TICKET  ;  and  that  only  course  which  the 
opponents  of  the  present  Public  School  System  could  with  honor  or 
consistency  pursue,  was  accordingly  adopted  by  them.  Accus¬ 
tomed,  Rt.  Rev.  Sir,  to  look  to  you  for  counsel  and  aid  throughout 
the  entire  discussion  of  this  question,  and  desirous  to  secure, 
amongst  its  friends,  erftire  harmony  and  unanimity  in  the  important 
movement  that  was  contemplated,  the  friends  of  the  independent 
ticket  requested  that  you  should  recommend  its  adoption  at  a  meet¬ 
ing  which  was  to  be  held  on  the  subject  at  Carroll  Hall,  on  the  eve¬ 
ning  of  Friday,  the  29'ai  of  October.  You  consented  to  do  so. 
You  rendered  that  service  to  the  cause  in  the  same  manner  as  you 
had  before  rendered  many  others.  You  attended  that  meeting  as 
you  had  previously  attended  others  on  the  same  subject.  It  Avas  not 
a  political  one  in  any  sense  of  the  word.  It  had  nothing  whatever  to  do, 
directly  or  indirectly,  with  party  politics.  It  was  called  solely  to  adopt 
means  for  protecting  the  principle  of  entire  equality  of  religious  rights 
and  privileges  between  all  classes  of  citizens  from  the  impending  de¬ 
struction  which  had  been  prepared  for  it  with  so  much  corrupt 
labor  and  unholy  zeal.  And  it  cannot  be  denied  or  concealed,  that 
your  forcible  and  impressiAm  counsel  on  that  occasion  contributed 
much  to  produce  the  triumphant  demonstration  Avhich  was  subse¬ 
quently  made — a  demonstration  Avhich,  it  is  hoped,  will  teach  bigots, 
that  neither  menace  nor  intrigue  can  succeed  in  forcing  upon  free 
Ajierican  CITIZENS  A  SECTARIAN  INSTITUTION  that  is  repugnant  to 
their  conscience,  and  which  will  also  admonish  politicians,  that  when 
tempted  by  a  prospect  of  momentary  advantage,  they  abandon 
popular  rights  and  republican  truth,  and  link  themselves  to  corrup¬ 
tion  and  intolerance,  they  will  find,  that  the  base  companionship 
will  be  to  them  like  the  poisoned  shirt  of  Yessus,  bringing  to  them 
only  defeat  and  ruin  and  political  death — the  just  reward  of  their 
contemptible  servility  !  W o  take  this  brief  retrospect,  Rt.  Rev.  Sir, 
of  these  transactions,  because  we  desire  to  place  the  facts  upon 
record — we  desire  to  hold  up  the  truth  in  a  distinct  and  prominent 
manner  before  the  public  gaze,  so  that  it  may  be  seen  and  under¬ 
stood  by  all,  and  that  the  delusion  which  many  have  sought  to  create 
may  not  be  suffered  to  prevail  either  with  respect  to  the  facts  them- 


I 


288 


AECIIBISHOP  HUGHES, 


selves  or  to  our  estimate  of  them.  Disappointment  in  their  expecta¬ 
tion  of  finding  us  to  be  mere  unresisting  victims,  whom  they  hoped 
by  their  deep  laid  combinations  and  stupendous  effort  to  over¬ 
whelm  and  crush  for  ever,  the  bigots  and  their  allies  have  turned 
upon  YOU  as  the  author  of  their  defeat.  They  have  sought  to  take 
the  despicable  and  loathsome  revenge  of  personality  and  abuse,  that 
deemed  nothing  too  mean,  or  too  low,  or  too  foul  for  its  services. 
Press  after  press  poured  forth  its  gall  and  rancor  in  falsehoods 
without  number  ;  and  some  men  were  found,  who  not  content  with 
assaults  comparatively  distant,  sought  to  draw  the  Ime  of  attack  still 
nearer — within  your  own  household  as  it  were — and  hoped  to  give  an 
additional  barb  to  the  calumny  which  they  uttered  by  assuming  to  them¬ 
selves  the  name  of  Catholics  !  Rt.  Rev.  Sir,  we  denounce  both  classes 
of  these  calumniators  as  equally  reckless  of  truth  and  of  the  principles 
of  liberty  which  they  effected  to  revere ;  and  as  to  those  who  sought  to 
give  a  peculiar  character  to  their  invective  by  their  nominal  creed^  we 
do  here  in  the  name  of  the  Catholic  body  of  New  York,  repel 
WITH  INDIGNATION  THEIR  assumption  of  a  right  to  speak  for  or  repre¬ 
sent  in  any  manner  the  sentiments  of  that  bo^y.  We  need  not,  Rt. 
Rev.  Sir,  refer  here,  at  any  length,  to  the  great  jirinciple  for 
which  we  are  contending,  or  the  arguments  by  which  it  is  sustained. 
These  you  have,  sir,  on  many  occasions,  powerfully  demonstrated 
and  laid  before  the  public.  But  we  should  not  at  this  time  omit  to 
repudiate  one  of  the  many  absurd  accusations  that  have  been  made 
against  us.  We  have  been  charged  with  advocating  the  doctrine  of 
the  “  Union  of  GImrch  and  State  I”  and  this,  too  when  a  union  of 
Church  and  State  was  one  of  the  identical  political  heresies  against 
which  we  had  so  resolutely  arrayed  ourselves  !  The  present  Public 
School  System  of  New  York,  we  esteem  as  but  the  old  system  of  a  ■ 
Law-Established  Church  in  disguise — a  scheme  that  seeks,  by 
the  sickly  substitute  of  a  State  system  of  education^  to  achieve  the 
same  end  that  was  formerly  accomplished  by  the  establishment  of  a 
State  system  of  Religion^  namely,  to  promote  certain  religious  doctrines, 
and  ta  discountenance  others.  Against  this  system  we  have  declared 
an  eternal  hostility.  Against  this  you  have,  Rt.  Rev,  Sir,  pleaded, 
and  pleaded  not  altogether  in  vain.  It  has  been  an  insidious  and 
dangerous  foe  to  the  religious  rights  and  the  purity  of  faith  of  those 
for  whose  spiritual  welfare  you  are  responsible ;  and  it  was  to 
counsel  the  adoption  of  the  only  means  of  resistance  that  could  be 
used  against  the  most  formidable  movement  that  had  yet  been  made 
by  this  enemy,  that  you  appeared  at  Carroll  Hall  on  the  memorable 
evening  of  the  29th  of  October,  Had  you  omited,  Rt.  Rev.  Sir,  to 
perform  the  noble  part  which  you  then  enacted,  we  must  be  permit- 
ed  to  say,  that  you  would  have  fallen  short  of  the  performance  of 
that  DUTY,  ■which  those  who  had  a  right  to  look  to  you  for  aid  and 
counsel  in  so  great  an  emergency,  would  have  expected  at  your 
hands.  Having  performed  it  and  suffered  for  it,  you  are,  sir,  there¬ 
by  DOUBLY  ENDEARED  TO  US  ALL,  and  h.Tve  earned  a  brighter  and 
more  endearing  honor  than  any  which  had  heretofore  ranked  you  t 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


289 


with  the  most  eminent  and  gifted  citizens  of  the  land,  or  made  your 
name  illustrious  amongst  the  prelates  of  the  chui’ch.  Your  heroic 
devotion,  lit,  llov.  Sir,  shall  not  be  lost  upon  us.  Already,  it  in¬ 
spirits  us  to  greater  enei’gy  and  perseverance  in  the  jirosecution  of 
a  just  and  righteous  cause — and  while  we  tender  to  you  the  heart¬ 
felt  assurance  of  our  approval  of,  and  gratitude  for,  your  great  ser¬ 
vices,  we  also  PLEDGE  ourselves,  that  only  with  our  lives  or  final 
triumph  shall  we  cease  to  contend  for  the  principle  around  which  loe  have 
rallied — -the  principle  of  perfect  religious  equality,  and  freedom 
OF  education,  equal  eights  and  equal  justice  to  all  classes 
AND  ALL  denominations. 

The  address  was  received  with  loud  cheering,  and,  together  with 
the  Preamble  and  Resolutions,  was,  on  motion,  unanimously  adopted 
by  the  meeting. 

[When  this  address  was  adopted,  Bishop  Hughes  was  not  in  the 
city,  hence  the  delay  in  replying.] 


Bishop  Hughes’  Reply 

To  the  Address  which  was  presented  to  him  from  a  general  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Catholics  and  other  citizens  of  New  York,  held  in  Wash¬ 
ington  Hall,  on  the  16th  Nov.,  of  which  the  following  gentlemen 
were  officers :  Thomas  O’Connor,  Esq.,  Chairman ;  Francis  Cooper, 
Bernard  Graham,  Felix  Ingoldsby,  Peter  McLaughlin,  Terence  Don¬ 
nelly,  P.  A,  Hargous,  John  Milhau,  J.  G.  Fendi,  P.  S,  Casserly, 
Gregory  Dillon,  John  McMenomy,  Hugh  Kelly,  James  Kerrigan, 
Dr.  H.  Sweeny,  Tighe  Davey,  John  B.  Lasala,  John  Quin,  John 
McNulty,  Andrew  Carrigan,  Peter  Murray,  James  W.  White,  John 
G.  Gottsberger,  Peter  Duffy,  Owen  McCabe,  Dennis  Mullens,  Rob¬ 
ert  McKeon,  James  01  well,  John  Mullen,  Joseph  O’Connor,  Daniel 
Major,  Vice-Presidents  ;  Bartholomew  O’Connor,  Edward  Shortill, 
and  Edmund  S.  Derry,  Secretaries. 

GENTLEiiEN, — The  perusal  of  the  Address  which  you  have  pre¬ 
sented  to  me,  as  passed  at  the  large  and  respectable  meeting  in 
Washington  Ilall  on  the  16th  inst.,  has  afforded  me  the  greatest 
pleasure.  The  numbers  and  respectability  of  the  meeting,  the  tone 
and  temper  of  the  proceedings,  the  union  of  feeling  that  prevailed, 
and  the  dignity  of  the  language  employed  to  express  it ;  are  such 
as  meet  my  entire  approbation,  and  reflect  the  greatest  credit  on 
yourselves.  In  replying  to  it,  I  shall  be  as  brief  as  possible,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  greater  perspicuity,  allow  me  to  divide  my  reply  into 
numbered  paragraphs. 

1.  I  hold  it  as  a  natural  and  civil  right,  that,  when  a  class  or  pro¬ 
fession  of  men  is  singled  out,  denounced,  assailed,  they  should  com¬ 
bine  for  the  purpose  of  self-defence  in  the  same  character  and 
capacity  in  which  they  are  attacked;  and  should  employ  in  self- 
defence  the  same  weapons  which  are  employed  by  their  oppressors 
19 


290 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


for  ae^gression.  If  men  are  singled  out  to  be  trampled  on  as  me¬ 
chanics,  they  have  a  right  to  rally  as  mechanics,  and  wield  the  wea¬ 
pons  of  assault,  for  the  purpose  of  repelling  the  assailants.  So  in 
regard  to  religion,  if  men  are  assailed  as  Methodists  or  Presbyte¬ 
rians,  as  Methodists  and  Presbyterians  they  have  a  right  to  combine 
and  protect  themselves.  And  if  in  consequence  of  the  exercise  of 
this  right  a  political  or  even  physical  contest  should  ensue,  the  cen¬ 
sure  of  virtuous  judgment,  whether  from  the  judicial  bench  or  the 
public  press,  should  fall  on  the  aggressors  against  the  rights-  of  others  ; 
and  not  on  those  who  in  consequence  of  their  being  assailed  are 
obliged  to  stand  together  in  self-defence. 

2.  But  was  this  the  position  of  the  Catholics?  Unquestionably 
it  was.  They  were  singled  out  and  assailed  as  Catholics.  They  go 
before  the  Senate  as  citizens,  petitioners.  The  official  advocate  of 
the  P.  S.  Society  traces  them  through  every  disguise,  until  he  brings 
them  out  in  their  religious  character  as  Roman  Catholics.  Every 
public  man  who  was  disposed  to  make  abstraction  of  their  religion, 
and  to  do  them  justice  according  to  the  common  right,  was  de¬ 
nounced  as  a  friend  to  the  “  Roman  Catholics.”  A  paper  was  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  immediate  interest  of  the  P.  S.  Society,  calling  on  the 
Protestant  voters  to  be  careful  and  zealous  “  even  in  their  primary 
meetings^’’  to  send  only  such  men  as  would  oppose  the  claims  of  the 
Roman  Cathoilcs.  For  a  twelvemonths  past,  certain  pulpits  of  the 
city  were  ringing,  Sunday  after  Sunday,  with  political  sermons  on 
the  school  question,  and  abuse  of  the  “  Roman  Catholics.”  The 
religious  papers  of  the  city  were  filled  Avith  political  homilies  to  the 
same  effect,  against  their  fellow-citizens  Avho  were  “  Roman  Cath¬ 
olics.” 

3.  During  all  this  time  of  multiplied,  various  and  undisguised 
aggression  on  the  Roman  Catholics,  in  their  religious  character,  the 
secular  or  political  press  looks  on  in  silence.  When  several  strong 
denominations  attack  one  that  is  Aveaker,  in  a  manner  Avhich  turns 
religion  into  politics,  and  politics  into  religion,  the  sentinels  of  our 
liberties  at  the  press  are  asleep.  But  Avhen  that  one  assailed  denom¬ 
ination  meets  the  assault  and  repels  the  assailants  Avith  the  same 
Aveapons  which  the  latter  had  selected,  then  the  danger  of  mixing 
religion  Avith  politics,  is  for  the  first  time  trumpeted  in  the  public 
ear !  If  Protestants  mingle  religion  with  politics  to  abridge  the 
Catholics  of  a  common  right,  it  is  all  well  enough ;  but  if  Catholics 
do  the  same  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  common  rights,  then  it  is 
all  AAU'ong.  Noav  I  agree  Avith  the  public  press  in  the  principle.,  that 
one  of  the  greatest  evils  Avhich  could  happen  to  society  is  the  mix¬ 
ture  of  religion  with  politics.  But  in  the  application  of  that  princi¬ 
ple,  I  hold  that  it  is  those  who,^rs^  introduce  the  evil,  Avho  employ 
it  in  assailing  the  common  rights  of  others,  and  hot  those  Avho  em¬ 
ploy  it  in  their  own  defence,  who  are  entitled  to  blame.  There  is 
not  an  editor  in  Ucav  York  Avho  can  deny  the  facts  stated  in  the  last 
paragraph  ;  and  yet  during  all  this  time  we  heard  not  a  murmur  of 
complaint  from  one  of  them !  The  Post  came  and  proclaimed  no 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


291 


tidings ;  The  Sun  was  eclipsed  ;  the  Commercial  Advertiser  gave  no 
warning  ;  the  American  forgot  its  name,  and  embodied  all  the  anti- 
Catholic  toryisra,  without  the  talent,  of  tlie  London  Times  ;  whilst 
the  Journal  of  Commerce  was,  what  I  supj^ose  it  ever  will  be,  in 
morals  as  well  as  merchandise,  the  Journal  of  Commerce, 

4.  Nay,  whilst  the  religious  papers,  such  as  the  '•'•New  York  Ob¬ 
server  f  became  'political,,  the  political  papers,  especially  the  Commer¬ 
cial  Advertiser,,  the  American,,  and  the  Journal  of  Commerce,,  became 
profoundly  religious.  Their  politico-religious  appeals  were  daily 
addressed  to  this  “  Protestant  country,”  this  “  Protestant  commu¬ 
nity,”  against  the  unfortunate  “  Romanists.”  This  is  known  to  all 
their  readers.  They  cannot,  and  will  not  deny  it.  And  yet  these 
are  journals  among  the  loudest  to  preach  of  the  degradation  which 
must  accrue  to  religion  by  any  contact  with  politics.  But  their 
preaching  condemns  their  own  practice  first  of  all,  and  their  incon-' 
sistency  in  blaming  the  “  Romanists”  for  employing  in  their  own 
defence  the  tactics  which  they  had  employed  in  aggression,  stares 
them  in  the  face. 

5.  But  was  the  measure  adopted  by  the  Catholics,  in  self-defence, 
a  political  measure  ?  On  this  point  each  one  must  abound  in  his 
own  sense.  For  my  own  part,  I  certainly  did  not  so  understand  it. 
I  foresaw  the  act  of  civil  suicide  which  the  Catholics  were  called 
upon  to  commit  by  voting  for  men  pledged  to  defeat  the  just  claim 
of  this  portion  of  their  constituents,  on  a  question  of  great  impor¬ 
tance  to  the  whole  community.  It  wmuld  be  said  in  the  Legislature 
next  winter,  that  “so  popular  was  the  P.  S.  Society  in  New  York, 
that  the  two  political  parties  invited  each  other,  in  pledges,  that  the 
great  corporation  should  be  continued  unchanged,  Avith  all  its  secta¬ 
rian  and  irresponsible  attributes.”  It  would  be  said  that  “  the  Cath¬ 
olics  themselves  voted  for  candidates  whom  they  knew  to  be  thus 
pledged  beforehand  to  deny  their  petition ;  and  it  would  be  inferred 
from  this,  that  even  they  were  satisf  ed  to  give  up  their  children  to 
be  indoctrinated  in  that  vague,  sickly,  semi-infidel  Protestantism 
Avhich  prevails  in  the  public  schools.”  If  they  had  voted  for  such 
candidates,  would  not  every  man  of  spirit  despise  them  for  their 
pusillanmity  ?  And  if  after  having  done  so  they  sent  a  petition  to 
the  Legislature,  Avould  they  not  deserve  to  have  it  contemptuously 
rejected  the  moment  it  was  known  to  have  been  sent  by  men  tvho 
returned,  as  their  representatives,  candidates  Avhom  they  knew  at 
the  time  to  be  pledged  against  it  ? 

6.  Thus,  then,  they  selected  names  not  pledged  against  them,  as 
men  of  common  sense  in  their  situation  should  do.  The  measure 
was  not  of  their  choice.  It  was  forced,  on  them.  Their  adversaries 
had  brought  religion  into  politics  against  them.  There  was  but  one 
escape  from  the  circle  of  fire,  which  the  political  intrigues  of  both 
parties  operated  on  by  the  sectai’ian  spirit  of  the  P.  S.  Society,  had 
well  nigh  closed  around  them.  This  was  to  throw  away  their  votes 
on  fictitious  candidates,  and  leave  their  adversaries,  of  both  parties, 
to  fight  their  own  battles.  Of  this  course  I  approved,  and  were  it 


/ 


292 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


to  be  done  again,  in  the  same  circumstances,  I  should  urge  it  in  Ian, 
guage  quite  as  strong  as  any  employed  by  me  on  the  evening  of  the 
29th  of  October. 

7.  I  have  been  accused  of  being  a  politician.  The  charge  is  false 
in  the  letter  and  in  the  spirit,  I  acknowledge  and  proclaim  the 
right  of  clergymen,  as  well  as  others,  to  vote  for  public  servants. 
But  considering  that  our  ministry  is  due  to  men  of  all  parties,  I  con¬ 
ceive  it  to  bo  the  duty  of  the  minister  of  religion  to  avoid  being  a 
partisan  of  either,  but  rather  to  study  the  things  which  will  soothe 
the  irritated  feelings  and  mitigate  the  asperities  of  political  strife. 

This  has  ever  been  the  rule  of  my  own  conduct ;  this  the  rule 
which  I  expect  to  be  observed  by  the  clergy  of  my  charge.  And 
if  at  any  time  they  or  I  should  appear  to  deviate  from  this  rule,  it 
must  be  for  the  maintenance  of  some  constitutional  princqile  far 
deeper  and  more  sacred  to  the  welfare  of  our  country  than  anything 
involved  in  mere  party  interests. 

8.  The  School  Question  involves  a  constitutional  principle  of  this 
description.  A  general  tax  is  imposed  for  education.  It  is  our  duty 
to  pay,  and  we  do  pay  our  proportion  of  that  tax  accordingly.  But 
then  the  discharge  of  this  duty  creates  in  our  favor  the  right  to  re¬ 
ceive  the  benefits  of  the  education  for  which  the  tax  was  levied.  Of 
this  right  we  have  been  unjustly  deprived,  for  sixteen  or  seventeen 
years  past,  in  the  city  of  New  York.  Here  the  business  of  education 
has  been  left  in  the  hands  of  a  private  corporation.  And  I  believe 
an  examination  of  facts  will  bear  me  out  in  the  statement,  that,  in 
the  expenditure  of  the  public  money,  in  the  selection  of  teachers, 
the  lessons  and  compilation  of  books,  and  the  religious  tendencies 
given  to  the  tender  minds  of  the  children  at  large,  the  whole  has 
been  made  subservient  to  the  aggrandizement  and  religious  interests 
of  one  or  more  sects,  predominant  by  their  wealth,  influence,  and 
tact  in  securing  to  themselves  the  administration  of  every  public 
trust  by  which  that  wealth  and  influence  may  be  increased  and  en¬ 
larged.  It  was  in  promoting  this  end,  no  doubt,  that,  contrary  to 
their  own  professions,  such  religious,  sectarian  exercises  were  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  Public  Schools,  which  soon  drove  the  Catholic  chil¬ 
dren  from  fountains  of  knowledge  which,  for  them,  were  poisoned 
wfith  eflusions  of  anti-popery. 

9.  It  is  a  great  oppression  and  injustice  towards  the  Dissenters 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  that  they  are  required  to  pay  tithes  for 
the  supjiort  of  a  religion,  from  whose  ministry  they  can  derive  no 
benefit.  A  kindred  injustice  and  oppression  have  been  exercised  on 
the  Catholics  of  New  York  by  the  Public  School  Society.  They 
tell  us,  indeed,  that  it  is  our  own  fault ;  but  this  is  precisely  what 
the  friends  of  the  church,  “  as  by  law  established,”  say  to  the  Dis¬ 
senters  on  the  other  side  of  the  water. 

When  I  was  at  Rome,  standing  under  the  arch  of  Titus,  and  con¬ 
templating  the  sculptured  emblems  of  the  sacred  vessels  and  candle¬ 
sticks  which  he  brought  from  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  I  was  told 
by  my  guide  that  during  the  middle  ages  (though  I  have  not  seen 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


293 


it  in  any  history)  the  Jews,  who  would  never  consent  to  pass  ixnder 
this  arch,  were  provided  by  the  government  with  a  private  passage, 
at  which,  however,  toll  was  regularly  demanded  of  them.  I  heard 
the  story  with  regret.  Their  reluctance  proceeded  from  an  honor¬ 
able  feeling,  and  should  not  have  been  i»venged  on  their  purse.  But 
our  Public  School  Society  go  further.  They  require  that  Ave  shall 
contribute  to  pay  for  the  arch,  and  even  the  emblems  of  sectarian¬ 
ism  with  which  they  decorate  it ;  and  if  we  Avill  not  then  pass 
through,  have  to  find  a  thorougfare  as  best  we  may. 

10.  Consequently  we  were  obliged,  after  paying  for  ]3ublic  educa¬ 
tion,  to  withdraw  our  children  and  provide  private  schools  to  save 
them  from  the  calamity  of  total  ignorance.  But  our  means  Avere 
utterly  inadequate  to  the  task.  Hence  that  state  of  mental  ruin  in 
which  I  found  so  many  of  the  Catholic  youth  of  this  city.  And  if  I 
have  espoused  this  question  of  general  education  Avith  a  zeal  which 
to  some  may  seem  extravagant,  it  is  because  my  OAvn  appreciation 
of  what  I  OAved  to  my  God  and  to  the  flock,  which  is  His,  commit¬ 
ted  to  my  care,  made  it  my  duty  to  do  so.  If  I  have  seen  the  young 
son  of  virtuous,  pious,  humble  parents,  an  ignorant  free-thinker  at 
the  age  of  eighteen — if  I  hav^e  seen  him  old  in  A'ice  before  he  reached 
the  term  of  his  minority — if  I  have  seen  him  a  disgrace  to  his  name 
and  a  curse  to  society  after  that  period — if  I  have  seen  him  pursue 
his  evil  courses,  until  he  broke  the  heart  of  the  mother  that  bore 
him — if  I  have  seen  the  daughter,  too,  Avhose  childhood  had  been 
watched  over  with  care,  growing  up  with  some  education,  but  with¬ 
out  any  religious  principles  to  guide  her  path  in  life,  falling  avvay 
from  virtue  until  she  brought  the  grey  hairs  of  her  parents  doAvn  to 
the  grave  in  sorrow  and  in  shame — and  if  I  could  trace  these  effects, 
as  clearly  as  moral  causes  and  consequences  can  ever  be  traced,  to  a 
defective,  unequal,  sectarian,  and  unjust  system  of  education,  then  it 
was  my  duty  to  my  country,  as  well  as  to  my  God,  to  call  public 
attention,  by  eveiy  lawful  means,  to  an  investigation  of  that  ruinous 
system. 

11.  But  it  is  asked,  “then,  what  system  AAmuld  be  deemed  just  by 
the  Catholics  ?”  I  answer,  any  system  that  will  leaA^e  the  various 
denominations  each  in  the  full  possession  of  its  religious  rights  over 
the  minds  of  its  OAvn  children.  If  the  children  are  to  be  educated 
promiscuously  as  at  present,  let  religion  in  every  shape  and  form  be 
excluded.  Let  not  the  Protestant  version  of  the  Scriptures,  Protest¬ 
ant  forms  of  prayer,  Protestant  hymns,  be  forced  on  the  children  of 
Catholics,  JoAvs,  and  others,  as  at  present,  in  schools  for  the  support 
of  which  their  parents  pay  taxes  as  Avell  as  Presbyterians.  The  P. 
S.  Society  liav^e  a  right  to  teach  their  own  children  that  our  Divine 
Kedeemer  “shoAved  uncommon  quickness  of  conception,  soundness 
of  judgment,  and  presence  of  mind;”  but  I  deny  their  right  to  intro¬ 
duce  such  degrading  notions  of  his  character  into  the  public  schools 
of  the  city,  and  impress  them  on  the  children  of  Catholics  and  Prot¬ 
estant  denominations  Avho  believe  higher  and  holier  things  of  the 
Son  of  God. 


294 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


There  is  another  system  which  the  Catholics  would  deem  just  and 
equal.  It  is  that  each  denomination  should  prescribe  the  amount 
and  quality  for  its  own  children  of  religious  instruction  which  con¬ 
sistently  with  the  ends  of  the  State  in  providing  education  might  be 
incorporated  with  it.  This  plan,  if  it  were  jiracticable,  would  in  my 
opinion  be  much  safer  for  the  welfare  and  security  of  society.  But 
as  it  is,  we  behold  the  establishment  of  religion  in  the  public  schools, 
by  the  private  authoidty  of  an  irresponsible  Board  of  Trustees,  a 
thing  for  which  neither  the  State  Legislature,  nor  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  could  constitutionally  give  them  a  particle  of  au¬ 
thority  ! 

12.  It  is  this  private,  clandestine,  surreptitious,  “union  of  Church 
and  State”  against  which  Catholics  have  protested.  It  is  this  which  ‘ 
has  driven  us  from  the  public  schools.  It  is  this  for  which  one  part 
of  the  community  pay  taxes  ;  whilst  for  another,  the  taxes  are  turned 
into  tythes.  It  is  this  which  for  seventeen  years  past  has  subjected 
the  Catholics  to  double  taxation,  first,  to  support  the  educational 
sectarianism  of  the  public  schools,  and,  second,  to  support  private 
schools  consistently  with  their  consciences.  For  no  Catholic  who 
believes  in  the  truth  of  his  religion^  can  allow  a  child  of  his  to  frequent 
the  public  schools,  as  at  present  constituted,  and  according  to  the  system 
which  has  prevailed  in  them,  without  wounding  his  own  conscience  and 
sinning  against  God ;  and  this  he  is  not  allowed  to  do  for  the  whole 
Ivor  Id. 

13.  There  are  one  or  two  other  matters  to  which  I  shall  allude. 
You  refer  to  the  attacks,  personal  and  otherwise,  made  on  me  by 
tlie  public  press.  To  the  statements  made  respecting  me  in  the 
public  prints,  I  do  not  jirofess  to  be  indifferent ;  and  if  I  were  so,  I 
certainly  should  not  boast  of  it.  But  remembering  the  account  I 
shall  have  to  render  to  God,  and  the  eternal  trusts  committed  to  my 
charge,  what  kind  of  a  creature  should  I  be  if  I  were  to  shrink  from 
any  duty,  through  fear  of  the  newspapers  or  of  human  opinion  ? 
Besides,  we  live  in  an  age  and  a  country  in  which  it  is  the  right  of 
the  public  press  to  scrutinize  and  judge  the  public  conduct  of  all 
men.  If  they  do  so  with  knowledge,  just  judgment  and  truth,  no  one 
has  a  right  +o  complain.  That  the  knowledge  of  the  true  state  of 
the  case  was  wanting  to  many  of  those  who  assailed  me,  I  am  ear¬ 
nestly  persuaded.  There  was  enough  to  give  the  coloring  of  truth 
to  the  first  impression  of  falsehoods  that  was  published,  and  this 
became  the  text  from  which  a  thousand  presses  copied.  I  would  not 
willingly  offend  the  conductors  of  the  press,  more  than  I  would 
offend  any  other  class  of  men,  and  certainly  all  the  abuse  they  have 
heaped  on  me  has  not  awakened  in  my  breast  a  single  feeling  of  ill 
will  toward  them.  Their  civil  right  to  indulge  in  abuse  is  resrulated 
only  by  the  law  of  lib^l ;  their  moral  right  must  be  determined  by 
their  sense  of  accountability  to  God.  Speaking  now,  as  I  may  sup¬ 
pose  myself,  to  the  Catholic  body  at  large,  I  would  impress  on  you 
with  all  the  earnestness  I  am  capable  of,  to  be  cautious  in  regard  to 
the  character  of  the  papers  which  you  admit  into  your  families. 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION’. 


295 


For,  unfortunately,  some  of  them  are  of  such  a  character  that  you 
cannot  hope  to  preserve  the  faith  or  the  innocence  of  your  fami¬ 
lies  if  you  allow  them  under  your  roof?  Let  the  clei'gy  warn  their 
flocks  against  them ;  let  the  people  know  that  they  commit  sin  in 
reading  them,  and  greater  sin  in  buying  them.  Voltaire  and  Rous¬ 
seau  are  less  dangerous  to  religion  and  morals.  In  each  of  our  prin¬ 
cipal  cities  the  Catholics  should  patronize  some  one  or  more  news¬ 
papers,  which  would  supply  them  with  all  useful  information,  with¬ 
out  that  mixture  of  blasphemy,  obscenity,  and  scandal,  in  which  too 
many  of  them  abound.  These  have  their  patrons  whose  principles 
cannot  be  corrupted  by  the  printed  immoralities  ’which  they  read; 
but  to  see  them  in  the  hands  of  a  Christian,  and  especially  a  Catho¬ 
lic,  is  a  disgrace  to  the  Christian  name.  All  my  efforts  to  save  the 
Catholic  children  from  the  dangers  that  surround  them,  will  be  in 
vain,  if  you  do  not  teach  them,  both  by  precept  and  example,  the 
necessity  of  shunning  the  corrupt  newspapers  of  the  day  as  they 
would  shun  plague  and  pestilence. 

14.  As  to  those  Catholics  (alas!  poor  Catholics  most  of  them) 
who  joined  the  crusade  against  the  rights  of  their  children  and  yours, 
I  feel  for  them  only  a  sentiment  of  pity. 

15.  Finally,  gentlemen,  I  am  by  no  means  surprised  at  the  very 
general  disapprobation  which  even  good  men  of  all  religions  and 
parties  have  felt  and  expressed  in  reference  to  the  subject  which 
gave  occasion  to  your  meeting.  If  I  were  a  tool  in  the  hands  of  a 
party — if  I  were  a  political! — if  I  brought  religion  into  jiolitics — if  I 
was  filling  up  the  measure  of  any  single  character  which  the  politi¬ 
cal  papers  falsely  ascribe  to  me  on  that  occasion,  I  agree  with  them 
that  no  terms  of  reprobation  would  be  too  strong  to  characterize  my 
conduct.  But  they  published  these  things — some  through  malice, 
some  through  ignorance  of  the  truth — all  under  the  fever  of  one  of 
those  political  struggles,  during  which  we  know  by  experience,  that 
men,  otherwise  moral  enough,  forget  all  distinction  between  truth 
and  falsehood,  except  as  either  may  subserve  the  party  interests  of 
the  contest  in  which  they  are  engaged.  Of  course  the  readers  of 
those  false  and  distorted  versions,  both  of  action  and  motive,  ivould 
assume  them  as  true ;  for  a  false  statement  in  print  is  very  different 
from  a  false  statement  in  conversation.  There  is  no  stammering,  no 
blushing  ;  no  inconsistency  or  self-contradiction  about  it.  The  other 
prints  that  have  copied  it  are  like  so  many  additional  witnesses  to 
corroborate  the  testimony.  Men  naturally  concluded  that  it  was 
true,  and  pronounced  judgment  accordingly.  It  was  a  “  union  of 
Church  and  State,” — “  bringing  religion  into  politics,”  a  “  lioman 
Catholic  Bishop  in  the  political  arena,”  etc.,  etc.  Not  a  word  or 
syllable  of  truth  in  all  this !  It  ’was  simply  a  pastor  warning  his 
flock  against  a  politico-religious  intrigue  already  sprung  upon  them, 
having  for  its  object  to  brand  the  word  “  Ignorance”  on  the  fore¬ 
heads  of  their  children,  as  the  penalty  of  not  conforming  to  the  secta¬ 
rianism  of  the  public  schools.  I  am  ready  to  prove  by  facts  that  it 
was  this  ;  and  I  defy  any  gentleman  of  any  party  to  prove  by  facts 
that  it  was  one  iota  more  than  this. 


296 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Ah  !  but  it  disturbed  party  arrangements.  If  party  arrangements 
are  based  on  iniquity,  they  ought  to  be  disturbed.  But  my  object 
was  to  protect  my  flock,  not  to  disturb  any  party.  Neither  am  I 
surprised  that  the  Catholics  themselves  should  have  staggered  for  a 
moment  under  the  misrepresentations  of  the  public  press.  Many  of 
them  had  not  studied  the  question.  They  know,  indeed,  that  I  never 
meddle  in  politics  ;  for  in  my  life  I  have  never  advised  a  man,  Cath¬ 
olic  or  Protestant,  as  to  he  w  he  should  vote  on  mex’e  political  ques¬ 
tions.  But  when  they  were  questioned  by  their  Protestant  neigh¬ 
bors  on  the  statements  of  the  newspapers,  they  were  bewildered  for 
an  answer.  “  It  was  a  pity,  so  it  was,”  and  this  was  about  all  they 
had  to  say  in  reply.  Another  class  of  Catholics,  at  least  so  called, 
looked  on  this  question  through  the  medium  of  the  little  offices  which 
they  held  or  expected. 

Poor  men !  without  a  particle  of  true  independence,  who,  instead 
of  using  the  faculties  of  mind  and  body  which  God  has  given  them 
for  making  a  decent  livelihood  by  their  industry,  are  mere  expecto¬ 
rants,  hangers  on  for  political  favors,  which  are  often  granted  only 
as  the  reward  of  degrading  services.  I  do  not  say  that  Catholics,  as 
well  as  others,  should  not  accept  any  office  they  may  be  thought  fit 
and  worthy  to  fill,  providing  they  are  not  degraded  by  the  means 
through  which  they  are  expected  to  reach  it. 

When  you  take  all  these  things  into  account,  I  think  your  wonder 
at  my  being  so  violently  assailed,  will  be  greatly  diminished ;  and 
your  judgment  of  those  who  assailed  me,  perhaps,  more  indulgent. 
As  for  mere  personal  abuse  and  scurrillity,  of  course  I  disregard  it. 
It  is  a  matter  of  taste,  and  each  one  may  indulge  his  palate  as  he 
will.  But  there  is  one  thing  that  deserves  our  admiration.  It  is 
the  perfect  order  which  prevailed  during  the  recent  election,  not- 
Avithstanding  the  appeals  Avhich  were  made  by  a  portion  of  the  press 
to  the  worst  passions  of  the  people,  stimulating  them  to  deeds  of 
violence. 

What  a  glorious  spectacle  was  presented  by  the  freemen  of  New 
York,  of  ail  parties,  when  they  were  seen  exercising  their  soAmreignty, 
Avithout  violence,  Avithout  quarreling,  Avithout  even  the  interchange 
of  a  reproachful  or  passionate  word ;  and  this  too,  under  an  un¬ 
paralleled  amount  of  fictitious  provocation  created  by  the  miscon¬ 
ceptions,  or  misrepresentations  of  the  press.  It  is  creditable  to  the 
character  of  the  city.  It  is  a  monument  of  testimony  to  prove 
man’s  capacity  for  self-government.  It  proves  that  genuine  republi¬ 
canism  can  present  to  an  admiring  Avorld  the  seeming  paradox — man 
sustaining  toAvards  himself  the  double  relation  of  a  subject  and  a 
sovereign.  Cherish  and  imitate  the  glorious  example.  Be  careful  to 
respect,  even  Avith  tenderness,  the  rights  of  others.  Be  equally 
careful  to  know  and  preserve  your  oavu.  If,  at  any  time,  you  should 
seek  for  any  privilege,  civil  or  religious,  Avhich  is  not  the  common 
right  of  all  other  denominations,  you  Avill  merit  the  rebuke  Avhich. 
you  Avill  not  fail  to  receive.  If,  at  any  time,  you  should  basely  sit 
doAvn,  contented  Avith  less  than  the  equal  privileges  Avhich  the  con- 


THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 


297 


Btitution  secures  to  all,  you  will  be  cordially  despised,  as  you  ought 
to  be,  by  your  fellow  citizens. 

Permit  me,  in  conclusion,  to  offer  you  my  heart-felt  thanks  for  the 
sympathy  and  confidence  which  you  have  expressed  in  my  regard — 
and  the  kind  manner  in  which  they  have  been  conveyed.  You  have 
not  been  mistaken  in  the  purity  of  my  motives.  Humble  as  I  am, 
I  would  spurn  from  my  presence  any  man  who  would  think  to  make 
me  a  political  instrument.  And  I  owe  it  to  the  public,  as  well  as  to 
individuals,  to  state  that  no  such  thing  has  ever  been  attempted. 
My  only  object  was  to  warn  you  against  being  made  the  instruments 
of  perpetuating  the  ignorance,  and  of  course  the  vice  and  degrada¬ 
tion  of  vour  own  children.  Ignorance  in  other  countries  is  a  misfortune. 
Here^  if  the  laws  were  fairly  carried  out,  it  would,  as  it  should,  be  a 
crime.  If  I  have  done  anything  which  shall  tend  to  prevent  that 
crime,  or  abate  that  misfortune  in  regard  to  the  rising  and  future 
generations,  I  shall  flatter  myself  with  having  rendered  a  service  to 
my  country  and  to  mankind.  And  if,  besides,  I  shall  have  con¬ 
tributed  to  rescue  even  one  youth  from  the  ruin  in  which  I  see  so 
many  plunged  ; — if  I  shall  save  the  aching  of  one  parent’s  heart,  I 
shall  value  the  gratitude  and  benediction  of  that  heart  as  far  more 
than  compensation  for  all  the  abuse  and  misrepresentation  that  have 
been  heaped  u^ion  my  name. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  Gentlemen, 

With  sincere  regard,  your  friend  and  serv’t  in  Christ, 

>p  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop,  &c. 

New  York,  November  29,  1841. 


Letter  on  the  State  of  Ireland. 

The  following  letter  of  Bishop  Hughes,  relative  to  the  condition 
of  Ireland  in  1843,  will  be  read  with  interest.  Though  hurried 
through  tliat  unfortunate  country  with  an  almost  steam  velocity,  yet 
to  his  koen  and  quickly  penetrating  eye  her  position  and  affixirs  seem 
to  have  offered  no  difficulty.  He  saw  and  understood  them  with 
wonderful  sagacity  as  the  contents  of  his  letter  will  show.  Although 
written  solely  to  meet  the  eye  of  a  friend,  this  letter — more  unsuspect¬ 
ed  on  tliat  account,  and  coming  from  so  high  an  authority — is  worthy 
to  constitute  a  public  document. 

London,  July,  1843. 

Hkv.  and  Dear  Sir, — Constantly  on  the  go  since  I  landed  in 
Europe,  I  have  put  oif  from  day  to  day  writing  to  you.  Thrown  by 
accident  into  the  stirring  scenes  of  a  most  interesting  and  eventful 
period  of  English,  and  more  especially  Irish  history,  I  have  been 
almost  bewildered  at  what  is  ])assing  around  me.  One  day  amidst 
the  thousands  at  Domiybrook,  listening  to  the  eloquent  and  patriotic 
Liberator  of  Ireland,  and  the  next  in  the  House  of  Commons,  listen- 


298 


AKCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


ing  to  the  masters  of  the  world,  I  might  almost  call  them,  attempt¬ 
ing  to  cope  with  and  defeat  one  man.  They  have  enough  to  do,  I 
assure  you.  Never  was  a  cabinet  more  perplexed  than  is  that  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel.  But,  though  O’Connell  has  the  right,  alas  !  they 
have  the  power,  and  God  grant  that  the  crisis  may  not  end  in  adding 
another  blood-stained  chapter  to  the  history  of  Ireland’s  misfortunes ! 

Repeal,  the  government  w'ill  not  grant  until  the  last  extremity — 
and  nothing  short  of  Repeal  will  be  of  much  use  to  Ireland,  or  will 
satisfy  the  Irish  peoiDle.  But  there  is  one  melancholy  consolation, 
that,  until  it  be  granted,  Ireland  will  continue  in  the  eyes  of  all 
nations  England’s  weakness  and  shame.  The  Parliament  and  the 
leading  journals  speak  of  nothing  else,  and  yet  the  question  seems 
to  make  but  little  impression  on  this  iron-hearted  people.  But  the 
truth  is,  that  the  Irish  must  depend  on  themselves.  If  they  follow 
the  advice  of  their  great  leader — keep  peaceful — and  carry  on  the 
great  fight  for  national  independence,  not  with  their  hands,  but  with 
their  heads,  their  hearts,  their  abiding  and  indomitable  will^  they 
must  be  ultimately  successful. 

We  landed  on  the  coast  of  the  county  Cork  on  the  28th  ult.  It 
had  been  my  plan  to  visit  Ireland  after  I  should  have  transacted  my 
business  on  the  Continent.  This  I  may  still  do,  but  my  feelings 
got  so  much  excited  by  the  poverty  and  oppression,  the  patriotism, 
’the  indifference,  and  the  perfidy  which  I  witness  in  that  lovely  land, 
that  it  is  a  relief  to  escape  from  the  spectacle. 

I  shall  visit  France,  Belgium,  and  perhaps  Holland,  and  hope  to 
set  out  for  my  diocese  in  the  steamer  of  the  1st  of  October.  Rev. 
Mr.  Curran  will,  of  course,  have  told  you  of  all  that  could  interest 
you  among  ourselves  in  America. 

>h  J.  HUGHES,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  PIUS  VII. 


299 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OP  PIUS  VIL 

A  LECTURE,  DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE  MERCANTILE  LIBRARY  OF 
PHILADELPHIA,  IN  NOVEMBER,  1841. 

The  life  oi  Pius  VII.  is  not  remarkable  for  any  of  the  great  and 
brilliant  achievements  which  make  men  in  elevated  positions  distin¬ 
guished  and  illustrious.  He  was  not,  in  any  peculiar  sense  of  the 
term,  an  extraordinary  man.  Endowed  with  a  mind  in  which  the 
general  force  of  the  intellectual  powers  did  not  shoot  up  into  any 
one  single  or  predominant  quality,  but  in  which  they  were  aU. 
blended,  each  in  just  and  suitable  proportion  with  the  others,  and 
this  mind  cultivated  in  the  highest  degree  for  the  vocation  to  which 
he  felt  himself  called,  he  presented,  in  the  aggregate,  that  rich  com¬ 
bination  of  mental  attributes  which  results  in  a  true  judgment  of 
men  and  things — “  uncommon  sense,”  or  common  sense  in  the  high¬ 
est  and  most  philosophical  acceptation  of  the  term.  An  impartial 
stranger  to  both,  and  viewing  both  in  the  light  of  the  same  philos¬ 
ophy,  according  to  their  ditferent,  I  might  almost  say  opposite,  call¬ 
ings,  if  he  wished  to  classify  the  order  of  mind  to  which  Pius  VII. 
belonged,  would  probably  place  him  in  the  same  list,  and  even  near 
to  him  who  stands  first,  if  not  alone,  in  the  annals  of  American  fame 
— whose  name  is  embalmed  in  your  hearts.  But,  oh  !  how  ditferent 
the  circumstances  in  which  they  Avere  respectively  placed !  The 
one  chosen  as  national  protector  to  the  young  and  free  hope  of  his 
rising  country ;  the  other  elected  only  to  inherit  the  atfiictions  of 
the  Church,  and  the  misfortunes  of  a  predecessor  who  had  just  died 
a  prisoner  and  an  exile. 

History  would  be  a  dull  and  unprofitable  study,  were  it  not  ani¬ 
mated  and  enlivened  by  the  presence  of  Biography.  Of  the  two 
parts  of  which  history  is  composed,  one  is  the  mere  record,  assign¬ 
ing  time  and  place — of  the  Avorkings  of  nature  and  her  elements — 
the  fiery  eruption  of  the  volcano — the  fury  of  the  tempest — the 
throbbings  and  heavings  of  the  terrible  earthquake,  with  their  con¬ 
sequences  as  regards  the  inhabitants  of  our  globe.  These  and  the 
like  come  from  a  power  superior  to  man.  He  has  no  agency  in  pro¬ 
ducing  them,  and  but  little  force  to  oppose  to  their  violence.  In 


aoo  LECTURE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 

their  preseuce  he  stands  overwhelmed  with  the  consciousness  of  his 
own  insignificance.  They  are,  indeed,  well  calculated  to  awe  his 
proud  thoughts  into  submission,  and  elevate  his  soul  to  the  adora¬ 
tion  of  his  God,  to  whom  the  most  violent  phenomena  of  nature 
recognize  subordination  and  obedience.  The  man  of  science,  also, 
may  derive  from  these  manifestations  of  the  powers  with  which  God 
has  imbued  the  elements,  beneath,  and  above,  and  around  us — some 
obscure  hints  and  data  wherewith  to  build  new  theories,  or  correct, 
regulate  and  adorn  old  ones.  To  an  extent  thus  limited,  the  study 
of  this  pari  of  history  is  useful.  But,  then,  it  is  only  the  action  that 
is  presented ;  while  the  iirinciple  and  mysterious  secret  of  the 
agency  are  far  removed  from  human  investigation. 

Putting  aside  this  division  of  history,  all  the  rest  is  but  the  record 
of  the  HUMAN  WILL,  brought  into  the  external  world,  obeyed,  re¬ 
sisted,  struggled  against,  or  submitted  to — with  its  everlasting  action 
and  reaction  on  the  theatre  and  in  the  affairs  of  life.  It  is  in  this 
department  that  intellectual  philosophy  delights  to  dwell.  Here  it 
is  that  the  mind  is  allured  from  the  consideration  of  the  event  which 
is  recorded,  to  the  deeper  study  of  the  motives  from  within,  that 
determmed  its  origin  and  influenced  its  course  and  character  ;  and 
thus  we  are  led  to  the  study  of  man — the  great  human  problem  of 
six  thousand  years — as  yet  unsolved. 

In  this  department  of  the  subject  there  is  yet  room  for  a  sub¬ 
division.  It  is  in  the  great  jireponderance  of  importance  which  his¬ 
tory  assigns  to  the  events,  with  their  minutest  circumstances,  which 
she  records,  over  the  living,  thinking,  reasoning  agents  who  are 
engaged  in  their  pi'oduction.  For  instance:  how  comparatively 
few,  in  the  annals  of  the  human  race,  have  been  thought  worthy,  in 
the  estimation  of  history,  to  have  their  names  transmitted  to  pos¬ 
terity.  I  speak  not  now  of  sacred  history,  but  of  that  which  is 
called  secular  or  profane.  A  few  orators  and  poets,  a  few  patriots 
and  generals — an  Alexander,  a  Homer,  a  Cicero,  a  Caesar,  best 
known,  and  a  few  others — have  entitled  themselves  to  be  enrolled 
in  the  same  annals  which  crowd  up  the  rest  of  mankind,  of  all  ages, 
into  undistinguished  masses  of  millions,  and  thus,  nameless,  consigns 
them,  with  the  waste  but  of  a  single  sentence,  to  dark  oblivion. 

The  Popes,  however,  have  at  all  times  been,  necessarily,  charac¬ 
ters  of  history.  Some  of  them  would  have  attracted  her  gaze,  and 
by  the  force  of  their  high  mental  powers,  Avoli  such  immortality  as 
she  can  bestow,  even  without  the  help  of  the  Tiara.  But  Pius  VII. 
was  not  of  this  number.  His  life  is  interesting  principally  as  one  of 
the  figures  moving  m  the  sequel  of  that  splenclid  but  terrible  vision 
which  burst  on  the  gaze  of  Europe  and  the  world  just  before  the 
close  of  the  last  century,  and  continued  till  the  Eagle  that  rose  out 
and  soared  above  it  was  at  length  taken,  in  1815,  and  chained  to  a 
rock,  where  he  was  left  to  pine  and  die.  It  has  passed  away,  that 
vision ;  leaving  us,  at  the  present  time,  but  a  few^  shadows  that  are 
seen  mingling,  here  and  there,  in  new  combinations.  In  that  great 
dr:una,  Pius  VH.,  both  as  a  temiioral  Prince  and  as  the  Head  of  the 


LIFE  AND  TniES  OF  PIUS  VII. 


301 


Church  in  all  spiritual  matters,  was  compelled  to  take  a  principal 
part.  It  was  not  his  to  direct  the  momentous  events  of  the  period. 
But  when  his  extraordinary  prudence  could  not  enable  him  to  evade 
their  course,  his  soul  was  strong  and  resolute  in  resisting  their  pres¬ 
sure.  Every  dynasty  of  the  continent  had  quailed  or  crumbled,  at 
the  distant  voice  of  the  Dictator  of  Europe;  but  the  Dictator’s 
voice  had  no  terrors  for  the  Fisherman’s  successor.  bTow  in  the 
Palace  of  the  Vatican,  and  anon  in  the  prisons  of  France,  he  is 
always  the  same ;  always  true  to  himself,  true  to  the  trusts  confided 
to  him.  lie  opposed  himself,  when  duty  required  it,  to  the  will  of 
the  greatest  warrior  the  world  ever  saw  ;  and  the  victor  of  a  hun¬ 
dred  battlefields  could  gain  no  conquest  over  the  resolution  of  a 
public  captive  and  infirm  old  man.  Such  is  the  subject  I  would 
bring  before  you,  in  the  hope  of  showing  you  that  greatness  of  char¬ 
acter  does  not  depend  on  the  success  with  which  brilliant  achieve¬ 
ments  are  accomplished,  but  it  depends  on  its  own  intrinsic  truth 
of  being,  which  is  best  established  by  the  test  of  adversity. 

Gregory  Barnabas  Chiaramonte,  afterwards  Pius  VII.,  was  son 
of  Count  Scipio  Chiai’amonte,  and  Giovanna  Ghini,  and  distantly 
related  to  Pius  VI. 

He  was  born  at  Casena,  in  Romagna,  on  the  l4th  of  August, 
1742.  Embracing  the  ecclesiastical  state,  as  soon  as  he  was  of  an 
age  to  make  a  choice,  his  youth  was  spent  in  the  seclusion  of  his 
profession,  and  presents  nothing  interesting  as  a  biographical  note, 
except  it  be  his  success  in  his  studies,  the  piety  of  his  life,  and  the 
mild,  unobtrusive  manners  which  endeared  him  to  his  superiors  and 
his  associates.  Having  joined  the  Benedictines,  he  was  appointed, 
from  a  Professor  of  Theology  in  his  own  order,  to  be  Bishop  of 
Tivoli;  and,  in  1783,  was  raised  to  the  dignity  of  Cardinal,  and 
transferred  to  the  Bishopric  of  Imola.  While  many  of  his  colleagues 
were  overtaken  by  the  revolutionary  hurricane  which  broke  out  in 
France  soon  after,  and  extended  itself  into  Italy,  Cardinal  Cliiara- 
monte,  by  the  influence  of  his  virtues  and  prudence,  was  enabled  to 
continue  at  his  post,  equally  respected  by  the  victors  and  the  van¬ 
quished.  Pius  VI.,  a  prisoner  and  an  exile,  died  at  Valence,  on  the 
29th  of  August,  1799.  On  the  1st  of  December  following,  the  Col¬ 
lege  of  Cardinals  met  at  Venice,  and  entered  into  conclave,  to  delib¬ 
erate  on  the  choice  of  his  successor  ;  and  their  deliberations  resulted 
in  the  election  of  Cardinal  Chiaramonte,  on  the  1st  of  March,  1800. 
He  took  the  name  of  Pius  :  and  now,  in  the  sixtieth  year  of  his  age, 
bowed  his  head  to  receive  that  once  splendid  Tiara,  which  he  must 
wear,  if  at  all,  over  a  crown  of  thorns. 

Here  it  is  that  his  life,  as  a  subject  of  history,  properly  begins. 
In  estimating  the  character  of  a  public  man,  according  to  the  stand¬ 
ard  of  philosophical  judgment,  we  are  to  view  his  course  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  trust  which  he  administers,  the  end  for  which  it  is 
confided,  the  expectations  of  those  from  whom  it  is  derived.  Viewed 
in  this  light,  the  life  of  a  pope  is  a  solitary  fact ;  in  his  time  there  is 
none  of  his  class  but  himself;  and  if  he  be  compared,  it  must  be,  not 


302 


LECTURE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


with  a  contemporary — for  in  his  official  capacity  he  has  none — ^bnt  it 
must  be  with  some  one  who  has  gone  before,  whom  he  is  to  follow. 
Yet  this  solitary  character  is  not  an  isolated  one  ;  it  is,  in  some  re¬ 
spect,  universal,  by  its  spiritual  relations  "with  all  the  parts  of  the 
globe.  And  since  every  principal  event  in  the  outward  social  or¬ 
ganization  of  men  is  accompanied  or  followed  by  its  moral  conse¬ 
quences  reaching  to  the  inward  or  spiritual  ivorld,  the  Pope,  by  his 
office,  js  2)laced  at  the  point  of  mysterious  connection  between  these 
two  ;  to  watch,  anticipate,  or  modify  their  mutual  action  and  reaction 
one  upon  the  other  United  with  this  trust  is  another ;  the  civil 
government  of  a  small  state,  by  which  he  ranks,  and  is  considered 
as  a  temporal  prince  and  sovereign.  The  post  is  at  all  times  one 
of  great  difficulty,  but  at  the  accession  of  Pius  VII.  it  was  surrounded 
wdth  unjirecedented  embarrassments.  The  hurricane,  in  the  mere 
lull  of  which  his  election  took  place,  had  spent  but  little  of  its  fury. 
It  was  still  careering  on  its  course  throughout  the  social  world,  and 
its  progress  could  be  traced  by  falling  thrones  and  shattered  altars. 
The  desecrated  temple  in  Rome  was  but  a  sequel  to  the  crimson 
and  gory  ^lavements  of  the  Carmelites  in  Paris.  Impiety  had  been 
enthroned  in  the  holy  place — the  national  councils  of  France,  always 
predominant  in  her  continental  influence,  had  heard  in  silence,  in- 
terrujrted  only  by  apjdause,  the  denial  of  any  God,  “save  Nature.” 
The  name  of  Christian  had  become  a  by-word  of  reproach ;  belief 
was  regarded  as  imbecility ;  new  dates  invented ;  the  blessed  era  of 
the  world’s  redemption  was  blotted  out  from  the  annals  of  the  new 
order — and  the  giant  of  revolution  was  strained  at  shaking  the  jDil- 
lars  of  universal  society. 

Oh  !  wdiat  an  assemblage  of  momentous  events  are  crowded  into 
the  checkered  history  of  the  period  which  followed,  bringing  out 
men  almost  as  extraordinary  as  the  period  itself.  Decrees  issued, 
not  to  be  executed  —  alliances  formed,  to  be  riven  by  the  sword’s 
edge  —  couriers  flying  to  and  fro,  from  one  end  of  Euroiie  to  the 
other — the  late  of  battle  turning  the  wisdom  of  cabinets  into  wildest 
nonsense — and  farther  deliberations  of  cabinets  arranging  for  new 
battles,  and  making  the  ground  thirsty  for  the  blood  of  coming 
strife.  These  the  times,  these  the  circumstances  in  which  Pius  VII. 
is  called  to  the  helm  of  the  Church,  agitated,  and  all  but  overwhelm¬ 
ed,  by  the  fury  of  the  elements. 

The  new  organization  of  the  States  of  the  Church,  into  what  was 
called  the  “  Roman  Republic,”  had  but  a  short  existence ;  and  had 
already  jiassed  away  when  Pius  VII.  was  elected  to  the  Pontificate. 
But  the  rapacity  with  which  the  rich  treasures  of  jiiety  and  art  had 
been  devoured  and  destroyed  by  the  conquerors,  and  the  extortions 
of  arbitrary  commanders  and  commissions,  incident  to  military  in¬ 
vasion,  had  reduced  and  almost  exhausted  the  means  of  the  affluent, 
and  multiplied,  in  a  corresponding  degree,  the  miseries  of  the  poor. 
To  the  condition  of  these  his  first  cares  were  directed.  He  ordered 
that  the  price  of  bread  be  lowered,  and  took  measures  that  the  sup¬ 
ply  should  not  fliil.  In  the  sacrifices  which  their  condition  required, 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  PIUS  VII. 


303 


he  set  the  first  example,  by  narrowing  down  the  expenses  of  his 
household  to  the  strictest  limits.  He  encouraged  strangers  to  visit 
Rome,  by  making  every  effort  to  restore  the  works  of  art,  .and 
monuments  of  antiquity.  While  engaged  in  these  appropriate  cares, 
the  tide  of  war  begins  to  run  again  in  favor  of  the  French  arms ; 
and  three  Provinces,  Ferrara,  Bologna,  and  Ravenna,  are  swept 
from  his  territory,  to  give  matheinatical  form  to  the  new  Republic 
in  the  north  of  Italy,  The  proximity  of  this  new  and  ambitious 
power,  left  the  Holy  See  completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  conqueror. 
This  circumstance  led  to  the  first  negotiation  that  took  place  be¬ 
tween  the  Head  of  the  Church  and  the  great  gener.al,  who  was  then 
First  Consul  of  France.  Beside  the  immediate  object  of  the  negotia¬ 
tion,  each  had  special  reasons  for  desiring  the  establishment  of 
mutual  friendly  relations.  If  Napoleon  should  succeed  in  realizing 
the  vision  of  perpetual  power,  which  already  began  to  dazzle  his 
ardent  mind,  the  favor  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  would  be  of  in¬ 
calculable  importance  in  cementing  and  consolid.ating  that,  for  the 
mere  winning  of  which,  he  had  faith  only  in  his  genius  and  his 
sword.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Pope  saw  that  the  First  Consul  was 
already  predominant  in  the  councils  of  France,  and  that  his  influence 
would  be  most  important  in  reconstructing,  from  the  fragments  of 
its  own  ruins,  the  sanctuary  of  religion  in  that  country.  The  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Corinth  (Spina)  was  deputed  to  Paris  to  conduct  the  mat¬ 
ter  on  the  part  of  the  Pope,  and  the  dispositions  of  Napoleon  were 
so  favorable  that  the  principles  of  an  adjustment  were  mutually 
agreed  ujDon;  but  the  execution  of  the  project  as  agreed  upon,  re¬ 
quired,  on  the  part  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  the  exercise  of  a  power 
which  none  of  his  predecessors  had  been  c.alled  ujjon  to  employ. 

The  difficulty  w^as  with  regard  to  the  Bishops  of  France.  None 
had  been  appointed  since  the  Revolution ;  and  those  who  had  re¬ 
ceived  their  appointments  before  belonged  to  the  old  order  —  were 
attached  to  the  fallen  dynasty — and,  of  course,  were  unsuited  to  the 
new  order  which  was  about  to  rise  out  of  the  social  chaos  of  the  in¬ 
terval.  With  most  of  them,  the  apostolic  entreaties  of  Pius  jire- 
vailed ;  the  others  procrastinated — the  requirement  was  novel,  and 
unprecedented  in  the  jurisprudence  of  the  church.  The  true  judg-  ‘ 
ment  of  the  Pontiff  did  not  fail  him  in  the  emergency  of  his  position, 
between  the  prompt  and  sanguine  temperament  of  Napoleon  on  the 
one  side,  and  tardy  resolves,  and  the  canonical  scruples  of  the 
bishops  on  the  other ;  and  preferring  the  safety  of  religion  to  the 
ecclesiastical  rights  of  her  ministers,  in  times  which  demand  gre.at 
sacrifices,  he  had  recourse  to  the  extreme  power  of  his  oflice,  .and 
suspended  from  their  jurisdiction  those  of  the  bishops  who  had  hesi¬ 
tated  to  resign.  Had  he  not  brought  energy  to  the  aid  of  prudence, 
in  this  crisis  of  the  Church’s  weal  or  wo,  who  could  tell  what  would 
have  been  the  consequence  to  religion  and  to  Fr.ance — nay,  to  Chris¬ 
tendom  and  the  world  ? 

The  concord.at  between  Napoleon  and  the  Holy  See,  by  which 
religion  was  ofiicially  recognized,  w^as  published  on  the  5th  of  April, 


304 


LECTFRE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


1802;  presented  to  the  legislative  body  and  officially  promulgated 
on  the  18th  of  the  same  month.  As  a  sequel  to  the  concordat,  the 
same  body  received  from  the  government  and  adopted  a  series  of 
enactments  called  Organic  Articles,  which  contained  certain  .pro¬ 
visions  violative  of  the  spirit  of  the  concordat  itself.  They  rendered 
the  Church  almost  entirely  dependent  on  the  State ;  and  even  con¬ 
tained  enactments  relative  to  the  exercise  of  religion  and  of  public 
worship.  The  Pontiff  complained  of  them  in  an  allocution  to  the 
Cardinals,  as  having  been  added  without  his  concurrence,  by  the 
secular  authority  alone ;  although  bearing  on  matters  of  a  spiritual 
character.  He  remonstrated,  and  required  that  they  should  be 
changed  or  modified,  but  without  effect.  They  were  invested  with 
the  prescribed  forms  and  incorporated  into  the  national  code,  as 
laws  of  thfe  State.  This  never  ceased  to  be  a  subject  of  painful 
anxiety  on  the  mind  of  Pius ;  while  its  importance  was  easily 
swallowed  up  in  the  weightier  and  mightier  events  which  soon  en¬ 
grossed  the  thoughts  of  Napoleon.  The  liberality  and  munificence, 
however,  which  he  manifested  toward  the  Church,  in  a  variety  of 
cases.  Induced  many  to  believe  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  First  Consul 
himself,  the  Organic  Articles  were  susceptible  of  a  less  rigid  interpre¬ 
tation  than  was  implied  by  the  literal  import  of  their  meaning. 
These  indications  in  favor  of  religion,  with  the  hope,  also,  of  being 
able  to  improve  them  into  happier  effect  by  his  j^resence,  determined 
his  Holiness  to  take  a  journey  into  France,  which  had  long  been 
solicited  by  many  pious  members  of  that  afflicted  portion  of  his  flock. 

But  events,  entirely  unconnected  with  these  considerations,  were 
now  in  progress,  which  furnished  him  with  an  additional  motive  for 
undertaking  the  voyage.  These  were  the  yet  rising  fortunes  of 
Napoleon.  A  cadet  at  the  military  school ;  a  lieutenant  of  artillery 
—  general  —  consul,  and  fii’St  of  his  order,  in  them  all  — these  were 
but  the  brief  resting  points  of  his  rapid  ascent  from  the  ranks  of  the 
battalion  to  the  giddy  heights  of  majesty  and  imperial  power.  The 
decree  of  May  18,  1804,  awarded  him  the  hereditary  and  imperial 
crown  of  France.  It  was  probably  in  anticipation  of  this  event  that 
Cacault,  the  French  Minister  at  Rome,  had  been  recently  superseded 
by  Cardinal  Fesch,  who,  in  his  double  capacity,  might  best  arrange 
the  delicate  project  of  engaging  the  Pope  to  assist  in  j^erson  and  per¬ 
form  the  ceremony  of  the  Emperor’s  coronation.  The  rights  of  the 
exiled  Bourbons ;  the  principle  of  legitimacy  contended  for  by  all 
that  was  not  France,  and  much  that  was,  presented  themselves  as 
reasons  for  refusing  to  accede  to  a  proposal  Avhich,  if  acceded  to, 
would  be  at  once  offence  to  all  the  old  governments  of  Europe,  and 
would  involve  him,  inextricably,  perhaps,  in  the  fortunes  of  the  new 
Emperor.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  unsettled  state  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  affairs  in  that  country ;  the  marring  of  the  concordat,  by  the 
Organic  Articles,  which  subjected  the  Church  to  the  will  of  the  State, 
in  so  great  a  degree ;  the  greater  necessity,  therefore,  to  secure  the 
good  Avill  of  the  Emperor — not  to  speak  of  the  good  which  he  might 
reasonably  hope  his  presence  would  produce  among  a  people  just 


LITE  AND  TIMES  OF  PITJS  VII. 


305 


awaking  from  the  wild  dream  of  partial  atheism  and  of  general  ir- 
religion — these  were  strong  and  urgent  considerations  why  the  invi¬ 
tation  should  not  be  hastily  declined.  The  matter  was  referred  to 
the  sacred  Council  of  Cardinals,  and  they  decided  that,  under  cer¬ 
tain  stipulations,  it  was  expedient  that  he  should  comply  with  the 
Emperor’s  wish. 

These  stipulations  had  reference,  for  the  most  part,  to  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  matters  of  the  gravest  importance.  But  this  did  not  exclude 
others  that  would  appear,  to  us,  at  least,  less  weighty ;  and  in  the 
ceremonial  of  audience  and  presentation,  we  find  Madame  de  Talley¬ 
rand  expressly  excepted,  “  lest  ”  says  his  Holiness,  “  I  should  appear 
to  sanction,  by  the  act,  a  marriage  which  I  will  never  recognize.” 

The  formal  letter  of  invitation  from  the  Emperor  himself,  wms 
dated  at  Cologne,  the  15th  of  September,  1804,  and  on  the  second 
of  November  following  the  Pope  set  out  from  Rome.  His  first  in¬ 
terview  with  Napoleon  was  at  Fontainbleau,  where  he  arrived  on 
the  25th.  Throughout  his  whole  journey  his  presence  was  every¬ 
where  hailed  with  demonstrations  of  joy  on  the  part  of  the  people, 
and  of  enthusiastic  devotion  to  his  person.  At  Paris  he  was  waited 
upon  by  deputations  from  all  the  public  bodies  and  learned  societies. 
He  had  the  happiness  to  receive  the  submission  of  the  constitutional 
or  state  bishops,  and  to  witness  the  unaffected  religious  attachment 
of  those  faithful  children  of  the  Church,  in  that  great  metropolis,  who 
had  never  swerved  from  their  fidelity. 

The  presence  of  the  Pope  in  Paris,  under  any  circumstances,  in  so 
brief  a  period  after  the  Revolution,  would  have  been  sufficiently  un¬ 
expected  and  astonishing.  Who  could  have  anticipated  such  an  event 
ten  years  before?  At  that  time,  the  only  sentiment  of  France,  that 
had  any  pretensions  to  indicate  the  national  will,  was  one  of  uncom¬ 
promising,  universal,  and  everlasting  hostility  to  royalty  and  re¬ 
ligion.  One  of  its  recognized  interpreters  expressed  its  object  in 
the  strong  but  coarse  declaration,  that  the  welfare  of  the  human 
race  would  not  be  complete,  till  “  the  last  king  shall  have  been 
strangled  with  the  entrails  of  the  last  minister  of  religion.”  Such, 
according  to  the  spirit  of  ’93-’94,  was  its  scope,  and  aim,  and  end. 
And  how  strangely — how  promptly — how  widely — it  must  have  di¬ 
verged  from  the  line  of  its  direction,  when  by  its  own  internal  Avork- 
iiigs,  and  in  the  space  of  ten  short  years,  it  invites  and  w^elcomes  to 
its  capital,  the  first  of  piiests,  to  place  the  emblems  of  royalty  on  the 
brow  of  its  OAvn  chief,  who  in  one  sense  might  be  called  the  first  of 
kino;s  1 

Napoleon,  however,  did  not  require  the  religious  offices  of  the 
Pontiff.  They  could  not  have  made  him  more  dear  to  his  army. 
The  crown  Avas  at  his  feet ;  and  his  own  right  arm  was  strong 
enough  to  raise  it  to  his  head.  The  moral  sanction  of  the  act,  wdiich 
.  Avould  be  implied  from  the  Pope’s  presence,  was  all  that  he  A'alued. 
The  ceremony  took  place  on  the  2d  of  December ;  and  that  over 
Pius  began  to  express  his  anxiety  to  return,  and  press  the  Emperor 
1  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  stipulations  which  bad  been  made,  as  the 
'  20 


306 


LECTTJEB  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


condition  of  liis  visit  to  France.  In  regard  to  these,  he  was  to  ex¬ 
perience  and  to  bear  the  most  painful  disappointment.  The  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  Order  of  Charity,  of  the  Christian  Brothers,  the  Society 
for  Foreign  Missions,  and  of  the  Irish  College  in  Paris,  was  all  that 
his  zeal  could  accomplish.  In  his  efforts  to  obtain  any  modification 
of  the  Organic  Articles,  he  was  entirely  unsuccessful.  Of  course, 
the  object  of  his  journey,  so  far  as  it  could  be,  was  now  accom¬ 
plished,  and  he  desired  to  return.  But  delays  and  obstacles,  to  him 
incomprehensible,  opposed  the  execution  of  his  design.  The  reason 
of  these  will  be  best  understood  from  the  following  passage  of  his 
biography,  from  which  it  will  be  seen  how  gigantic  and  how  wise, 
according  to  his  purpose,  were  the  prospects  of  the  Emperor : — 
“  The  Pope,”  says  his  biographer,  Chevalier  Artuad,  “  never  men¬ 
tioned  the  name  of  the  high  official  who  proposed  to  him  to  reside 
at  Avignon,  to  accept  a  palace  in  the  arch-diocese  of  Paris,  and  al¬ 
low  a  privileged  quartier  to  be  established,  as  at  Constantinople, 
where  the  diplomatic  corps  accredited  to  the  holy  Papal  Court, 
should  have  the  exclusive  privilege  of  residing.  This  proposal,  at 
first  insinuated  rather  than  directly  addressed,  afterwards  repeated 
to  his  attendants  and  confidants,  and  to  several  Frenchmen  who  were 
friendly  to  the  Holy  See,  led  him  to  suppose  that  there  was  an  in¬ 
tention  of  detaining  him  in  France.  The  fatal  words  were  never 
directly  pronounced  by  Napoleon;  but  he  possessed  such  a  control 
over  the  thoughts  and  words  of  men  at  Paris,  that  it  was  not  pos¬ 
sible  they  should  have  been  hazarded  without  his  sanction.  It  was 
repeated,  at  least,  with  so  much  confidence,  that  the  Pope  thought 
it  right  at  length  to  reply  to  the  same  official  personage,  ‘  It  is  re¬ 
ported  that  you  mean  to  detain  us  in  France.  Be  it  so.  You  may 
take  away  our  liberty,  if  you  will.  All  that  is  provided  for.  Be¬ 
fore  leaving  Rome,  we  signed  a  regular  abdication,  which  will  come 
into  force  the  moment  we  are  cast  into  prison.  This  act  is  beyond 
the  power  of  France.  It  is  in  the  hands  of  Cardinal  Pignatelli,  at 
Palermo  ;  and  the  moment  you  make  public  your  designs,  that  mo¬ 
ment  you  will  have  in  your  hands  only  a  poor  simple  monk,  named 
Barnabas  Chiaramonte.’ 

“  That  very  evening,  the  orders  for  his  departure  were  submitted 
to  the  Emperor.”  Vol.  ii.  pp.  38-9. 

This  reply,  worthy  of  its  author,  set  the  matter  at  rest.  And  now 
that  he  was  to  set  out,  rich  presents  were  prepared  for  himself  and 
retinue,  and  pensions  were  assigned  by  the  Emperor  for  the  Car¬ 
dinals  who  accompanied  him.  These  were  delicately,  but  s'tead- 
fastly  declined ;  and  the  Emperor  having  already  set  out  for  Milan, 
where  he  was  to  be  crowned  King  of  Italy,  Pius  VII.,  disappointed 
of  nearly  all  his  dearest  hopes,  set  out  for  Rome  on  the  5th  of  April, 
1805.  On  his  way  he  had  the  consolation  to  receive,  at  Florence, 
the  submission  and  full  retractation  of  all  bis  eiTors,  of  the  too  cele¬ 
brated  Ricci,  Bishop  of  Pistoria. 

The  unsatisfactory  state  in  which  these  negotiations  terminated, 
was  rendered  still  more  so  by  events  which,  in  the  regular  events 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  PIUS  VII. 


307 


of  the  ■world,  would  have  been  centuries  apart ;  but  which,  under 
the  fiery  powers  that  ruled  the  destinies  of  the  period,  were  crowded 
into  the  lapse  of  a  few  years.  The  Oi’ganic  Articles  were  extended 
to  the  new  kingdom  of  Italy.  This  naturally  filled  the  mind  of  Pius 
with  affliction  and  grief.  Another  matter,  of  a  domestic  character, 
and  personal  to  the  Emperor,  occurred  about  the  same  time ;  which 
was  the  marriage  of  his  brother,  Jerome,  to  a  young  lady  of  this 
country.  This  marriage  the  Emperor  wfished  to  have  canonically 
annulled,  and  for  that  purpose  diplomacy  was  plied  to  its  utmost. 
It  was  solicited  by  the  Emperor  himself ;  but  it  was  replied  that 
the  marriage,  though  not  according  to  the  canonical  forms,  was  valid 
nevertheless,  and  could  not  be  annulled  by  any  authority  on  earth. 
All  these  things  tended  to  widen  the  breach,  and  increase  the  es¬ 
trangement. 

The  war  with  Austria  had  commenced,  and  the  Papal  foi't  of 
Ancona,  seized  by  the  French,  under  St.  Cyr.  The  Pope  proclaims 
his  protest  against  the  usurpation  ;  and  is  answered,  after  six  months, 
by  an  imperious  letter,  on  the  part  of  Napoleon.  This  reply  of  Pius 
is  remarkable  for  its  apostolic  meekness  and  jn’udence,  blended  with 
firmness  and  dignity.  To  another  subsequent  letter  of  the  Emperor, 
we  may  quote  the  following  portion  of  his  reply  as  a  specimen  of 
their  quality  : 

“  We  commence  with  your  Majesty’s  demands.  You  require  of 
us  to  expel  from  our  States  all  the  subjects  of  Russia,  England,  and 
Sweden,  and  the  agents  of  the  King  of  Sardinia ;  as  also  to  close  our 
ports  against  the  ships  of  the  above-named  nations.  You  require 
us  to  abandon  our  peaceful  neutrality  and  declare  open  war  against 
those  powers.  Your  Majesty  will  permit  us  clearly  and  precisely  to 
reply,  that  it  is  impossible  for  us — not  on  account  of  our  temporal 
interests,  but  of  the  essential  duties  inseparable  from  our  character 
• — to  comply  with  these  demands.  Consider  well  all  the  relations  in 
which  we  are  placed,  and  judge  whether  it  becomes  your  religion, 
your  greatness,  or  your  humanity,  to  compel  us  to  a  step  of  this 
nature. 

“  It  is  not  our  will,  it  is  that  of  God,  whose  place  we  hold  on 
earth,  that  prescribes  to  us  the  duty  of  peace  towards  all,  without 
distinction  of  Catholic  or  Protestant,  far  or  ne.ar,  benefactor  or  per¬ 
secutor.  We  cannot  betray  the  office  committed  to  us  by  the 
Almighty ;  and  we  should  betray  it,  were  we,  for  the  motives  as¬ 
signed  by  your  Majesty — that  is,  because  the  parties  in  question  are 
heretics,  who  can  only  work  us  injury  (these  are  your  Majesty’s 
■words) — to  accede  to  a  demand  which  would  involve  us  in  a  war 
against  them. 

“  The  Catholics  who  reside  in  the  dominions  of  these  powers  are 
of  no  inconsiderable  numbers.  There  are  millions  of  Catholics  in 
the  Russian  empire.  There  are  millions  and  millions  in  the  countries 
subject  to  England.  They  enjoy  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion, 
and  are  protected  by  the  State.  We  cannot  foresee  the  conse¬ 
quences,  if  these  powers  should  see  themselves  provoked  by  an  act 


308 


LECTURE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  hostility  so  decided  as  would  be  the  expulsion  of  their  subjects 
and  the  closing  of  our  ports  against  their  shijiping.  Their  resent¬ 
ment  against  us  would  be  the  stronger,  that,  in  appearance,  it  would 
be  more  unjust,  since  we  had  not  sustained  any  injury  at  their 
hands, 

“These  are  the  candid  sentiments  which  the  voice  of  conscience 
has  dictated.  Should,  unhappily,  your  Majesty’s  heart  be  unmoved 
by  our  words,  we  should  suffer  with  evangelical  resignation,  we 
should  submit  to  every  affliction,  receiving  them  all  from  the  hands 
of  the  Lord.  Yes,  truth  shall  always  triumph  on  our  lips  ;  con¬ 
stancy  in  maintaining  untouched  the  rights  of  our  See  shall  reign  in 
our  heart ;  we  will  face  all  the  adversities  of  life,  rather  than  prove 
unworthy  of  our  ministry.  And  you — you  will  not  desert  that 
spirit  of  wisdom  and  foresight  which  distinguishes  you.  It  taught 
you  that  the  2:)rosperity  of  a  government  and  the  tranquillity  of  a 
people  are  inseparably*  connected  with  the  welfare  of  relio-ion.” 
(Vol.  ii.,  p.  230.) 

The  crisis  was  now  hurrying  on  with  accelerated  rapidity.  The 
Pajial  princijialities  of  Benevento  and  Ponte  Carvo  are  seized  and 
bestowed  upon  Talleyrand  and  Bernadette.  The  Pope  protests, 
but  offers  no  resistance.  Alquier,  who  succeeded  Fesch  as  ambas¬ 
sador  at  Rome,  is  instructed  to  demand,  formally^  that  the  ports  of 
the  States  be  forthwith  closed  against  the  enemies  of  the  Empire ; 
and  the  answer  of  Pius  is  worthy  of  his  post:  “His  Majesty  may 
execute  his  menace  if  he  will.  He  may  strip  me  of  my  possessions  : 
I  am  resigned.  I  am  ready,  if  it  be  the  will  of  God,  to  retire  to  my 
convent,  or,  like  the  first  successors  of  St.  Peter,  to  the  catacombs  of 
Rome.” 

This  refusal  of  the  inflexible  Pontiff  exasperated  the  Emperor 
exceedingly,  and  gave  occasion  to  that  angry  letter  which  he  wrote 
to  the  Viceroy  of  Italy,  Eugene.  It  was  dated  Dresden,  28  th  of 
July. 

The  tone  of  this  letter  foreshadowed  but  too  well  the  events 
which  were  soon  to  follow.  A  French  army,  commanded  by  Gen¬ 
eral  Miollis,  under  pretence  of  opening  a  communication  between 
northern  and  southern  Italy,  took  possession  of  Rome,  and  planted 
their  cannon,  directed  against  the  Quirinal  Palace.  Four  additional 
provinces  were  taken  from  the  States  of  the  Church,  and  attached 
to  the  kingdom  of  Italy.  The  Cardinals,  to  the  number  of  twenty, 
were  expelled ;  and  Pius,  deprived  of  their  counsel  and  support,  re¬ 
duced  to  the  condition  of  a  prisoner  in  his  own  capital.  Such  was 
the  state  of  affairs  at  Rome  in  the  latter  end  of  1808  and  beginning 
of  1809.  On  the  Vth  of  May,  1809,  Najioleon  dated,  from  the  camp 
at  Vienna,  the  decree,  uniting  the  Avhole  Papal  territory  of  the 
kingdom  of  Italy;  and  on  the  10th  of  June  his  standard  replaced 
the  Roman  banner,  which  for  ages  had  waved  on  the  summit  of  St. 
Angelo.  To  all  these  scenes  of  violence  and  usurpation  Pius  pre¬ 
sented  no  resistance,  other  than  that  of  unyielding  endurance,  and 
the  resignation  of  unbroken  fortitude.  Of  this  the  evidence  is  found 


/ 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OP  PIUS  VII.  309 

in  two  documents  composed  by  him  at  this  time ;  the  one,  in  which 
he  pours  out  the  deep  tenderness  and  afliiction  of  his  soul,  in  a  pas¬ 
toral  letter,  bidding  farewell  to  his  flock  ;  the  other,  a  bull  of  excom' 
munication,  directed,  without  naming  any  one,  against  the  “  authors, 
movers  and  abettors  ”  of  the  violations  of  the  rights  of  his  See. 
Tliis  he  wrote  with  cannon’s  mouth  pointed  against  his  apart¬ 
ments.  Notwithstanding  the  vigilance  of  the  French  guards,  it  was 
posted,  and  thus  promulgated,  at  the  porches  of  St.  John  of  Lateran, 
and  St.  Mary  Major,  by  a  hackney-coackman  and  his  son.  The  mo¬ 
ment  it  was  discovered,  it  was  carried  to  General  Miollis,  and  imme¬ 
diately  forwarded,  by  express,  to  the  Emperor.  What  followed  had 
been  anticipated.  On  the  6th  of  July,  Pius,  at  three  o’clock  in  the 
morning,  was  seized  in  his  apartments,  and,  without  so  much  as  a 
single  change  of  dress,  thrust  into  a  carriage,  which  was  closed  and 
locked,  to  prevent  his  being  recognized,  and  thus  hurried  away  he 
knew  not  whither.  In  this  way  was  he  kept  for  nineteen  hours 
under  the  broiling  sun  of  Italy,  and  his  remai’k  to  the  guards,  that 
if  the  orders  were  to  carry  him  to  France,  dead  or  alive,  they  might 
proceed,  obtained  for  him  only  the  respite  of  a  few  hours.  He  ob¬ 
tained,  on  the  way  to  his  place  of  exile,  a  change  of  linen  from  a 
poor  peasant ;  and  with  this  alleviation  to  the  fatigue  of  a  long  jour¬ 
ney,  and  a  burning  fever,  he  arrived  at  length,  a  prisoner  at  the 
Episcopal  palace  of  Savona.  All  the  official  papers  of  the  public 
functionaries  at  Rome  were  seized,  some  of  the  Cardinals  arrested 
and  sent  to  prison,  and  the  rest  summoned  to  Paris. 

This  unhappy  warfare  with  a  defenceless  old  man  did  not  inter¬ 
rupt  the  mighty  progress  of  the  French  armies  in  other  parts  of 
Europe.  The  very  morning  which  saw  the  forcible  abduction  of 
Pius,  from  Rome,  lighted  up  the  tires  of  the  battle  of  W agram, 
which  led  to  the  treaty  of  Schoenbrunn,  and  the  alliance  with  Austria. 
From  this  again  resulted  another  case  of  difficulty  to  the  Emperor, 
in  relation  to  the  question  of  the  validity  of  his  marriage  with  the 
Empress  Josephine,  and  his  subsequent  marriage  with  Maria  Louisa, 
of  the  House  of  Hapsburgh.  The  Pope’s  concurrence  in  the  non¬ 
validity  of  the  former  marriage  was  sought  for  in  every  Avay,  but 
could  never  be  obtained.  The  whole  ecclesiastical  proceedings  are 
exceedingly  curious,  and  but  little  understood.  But  they  are  too 
long  to  be  introduced  here.  The  refusal  of  Pius  to  invest  with 
canonical  installation,  until  he  should  be  set  at  liberty,  those  who 
had  been  nominated  to  the  episcopacy  by  the  Emperor,  increased 
the  difficulty  still  more.  Napoleon  had  never  believed  thoroughly 
in  the  word  impossible,  and  his  spirit  was  chafed  by  thus  encounter¬ 
ing  difficulties  which  neither  he  nor  his  legions  could  overcome. 
His  severity  was  extended  to  all  the  friends  of  the  Pontiff,  and  soon 
reached  the  venerable  captive  himself.  On  the  7th  of  June,  1811, 
his  apartments  were  forced,  and  his  books  and  papers  carried  away. 
He  and  his  household  were  reduced  to  the  daily  allowance  of  five 
Pauls  :  about  two  shillings  a  day.  This  treatment  had  the  eflect 
only  to  give  new  strength  to  the  resolution  of  Pius,  and  new  occa- 


310 


LECTUBE  OF  AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


sion  for  the  display  of  that  calm  resignation  which  distinguished 
him  ;  while  it  served  abroad  to  arouse  the  indignant  sympathies  of 
Protestant  as  well  as  Catholic  Europe  in  his  favor.  It  was,  how¬ 
ever  soon  mitigated,  and  he  enjoyed  comparative  quiet  for  some 
months  after,  owing  in  some  measure  to  the  memorable  but  fatal 
campaign  in  Russia.  This  was  indeed  of  sufficient  magnitude  to 
draw  the  mind  of  ISTapoleon  from  whatever  might  concern  the  situ¬ 
ation  of  the  venerable  Pontiff  in  his  prison.  Neither,  perhaps,  would 
it  be  just  to  affirm  that  the  hardships  which  he  suffered  Avere  at  any 
time  fully  known  or  approved  by  the  Emperor.  But  that  he  was 
subjected  to  privations,  sufferings  and  ill  treatment,  Avhich,  consid¬ 
ering  his  rank  as  a  temporal  prince,  his  office  as  head  of  the  Church, 
and  his  age  (being  already  seventy  years),  turned  this  part  of  his 
life  into  what  may  be  termed  the  very  romance  of  misfortune, 
admits  of  no  doubt;  and  the  project  of  Napoleon,  to  make  a  new 
provision  for  him,  in  accordance  with  the  disposition  already  made 
of  the  States  of  the  Church,  together  Avith  documentary  evidence 
bearing  directly  on  the  subject,  and  quoted  in  the  Pontiff’s  life, 
leave  it  but  too  certain  that,  as  head  of  the  empire,  a  large  share  of 
the  responsibility  of  the  case  devolved  upon  him.  The  great  object 
Avas  to  obtain  the  Pope’s  concurrence  in  a  new  concordat,  founded 
on  the  principle  of  profound  secular  policy,  but  Avhich  he  jiidged  auo- 
lative  of  the  trusts  he  held  for  higher  than  human  ends.  This  judg¬ 
ment  he  adhered  to  with  a  poAver  of  will  which  was  unconquerable. 
An  offer  of  two  millions  of  croAvns  a  year  is  made  to  him :  his  reply 
is,  that  the  charity  of  the  faithful  is  sufficient  for  his  Avants. 

The  fatal  result  of  the  Russian  campaign  seemed  to  mark  the 
period  when  the  bright  and  dazzling  star  of  Napoleon  oA^ershot  its 
sphere,  and  began  to  fade.  The  French  empire  Avhich  his  genius, 
under  the  guidance  of  patriotism,  as  some  contend,  or  ambition,  as 
others  Avill  have  it,  had  extended  to  the  farthest  boundaries  of  many 
states,  began  to  be  disorganized.  Even  the  kings  Avhom  he  had 
created  Avere  not  true  to  him  ;  while  others  seized  the  first  hour  of 
shifting  fortune  to  press  upon  him  and  precipitate  his  fall.  But  of 
all  Avho  Avere  sovereigns  when  he  began  to  wield  the  destinies  of 
France,  and  aaEo  were  brought  under  her  influence  by  arms,  there 
w’as  one,  and  only  one,  Avho  neither  yielded  to  his  power  nor  tri¬ 
umphed  over  his  misfortunes — the  meek,  patient,  but  constant  and 
intrepid  Pius  VII.  The  eye  of  Napoleon  could  not  but  read  in  the 
political  horizon,  all  around,  the  symptoms  of  a  futurity,  in  regard  to 
his  own  position,  Avhich  his  heart  might  be  sIoav  to  believe.  At  all 
eA'ents,  he  became  impatient  and  importunate  in  reference  to  what 
was  termed  the  obstinacy. of  Pius.  He  and  the  Empress  Avaited  on 
him,  with  every  mark  of  respect,  at  Fontainbleau.  He  set  the  min¬ 
istry  of  negotiation  by  all  others  aside,  and  assumed  it  himself. 
IntervieAvs  took  place  between  the  principals  themselves,  in  relation 
to  the  matter,  and  the  Pontifl’,  noAV  in  the  seA’enty-third  year  of  his 
age — Avorn  out  by  sickness,  Avithout  a  single  trusted  friend  around, 
and  beset  with  emissaries  on  all  sides — was  induced,  Avith  fingers 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  PIUS  VII. 


311 


scarce  able  to  trace  the  lines,  to  sign,  on  the  23d  of  January,  1813, 
the  preliminaries  of  a  new  concordat;  but  with  the  express  stipula¬ 
tion  that  no  steps  should  be  publicly  taken  till  he  had  free  and  full 
liberty  to  consult  with  his  official  counsellors.  From  this  moment 
all  restraint  on  himself  and  his  friends  was  removed.  It  was  imme¬ 
diately  proclaimed  to  France  that  all  differences  between  the  Em¬ 
peror  and  the  Pope  had  ceased,  and  the  “  concordat  ”  made  the  law 
of  the  empire.  Pius  saw  in  this  the  open  violation  of  one  stipula¬ 
tion  on  which  alone  he  signed.  He  lost  no  time  in  issuing  his  pro¬ 
test  against  the  violation,  and  recalling  his  fraudulently  extorted 
consent. 

All  hope  of  arrangement  was  now  at  an  end,  and  the  importance 
of  the  negotiation  became  insignificant  amid  the  invasion  which  was 
rushing  on  the  heart  of  the  empire  from  all  its  extremities.  On  the 
22d  of  January,  1814,  the  order  was  issued;  and  the  next  day, 
accompanied  by  a  single  attendant,  Pius  was  on  his  journey — 
although  he  did  not  reach  his  capital  till  the  24th  of  May  following. 
Connected  with  this  event,  there  is  an  anecdote  recorded  in  his  life 
which  shows  the  Christian  and  forgiving  spirit  of  his  character,  and 
contributed  much  to  swell  the  enthusiasm  with  which  his  return 
was  hailed  by  all  classes  of  his  people.  It  occurred  on  his  way  to 
Casena,  his  native  city. 

“King  Joachim  Murat  demanded  to  present  his  homage  to  Pius 
VII.,  and  was  instantly  admitted  to  audience  with  his  Holiness. 
After  the  first  compliments,  Joachim  signified  that  he  was  ignorant 
of  the  object  of  his  journey. 

“  ‘  I  am  going  to  Rome,’  said  his  Holiness ;  ‘  is  it  possible  you  can 
De  ignorant  of  it  ?’ 

“  ‘  Has  your  Holiness,  then,  determined  to  go  to  Rome  ?’ 

“  ‘  What  can  be  more  natural  ?’  replied  Pius. 

“  ‘  But  does  your  Holiness  intend  to  return,  despite  of  the  Ro¬ 
mans  ?’ 

“  ‘  I  do  not  comprehend  you,’  replied  the  Pope. 

“  ‘  The  chief  nobility  of  Rome,  and  the  rich  commoners,’  said 
Murat,  ‘  have  prayed  me  to  present  to  the  allies  a  memorial,  with 
their  signatures,  demanding  that,  henceforward,  they  should  not  be 
governed,  save  by  a  secular  prince.  Here  is  the  memorial.  I  have 
sent  a  copy  of  it  to  Vienna ;  but  I  retain  the  original,  which  I  sub¬ 
mit  to  your  Holiness,  in  order  that  you  may  see  the  signatures.’ 

“  At  these  words  Pius  took  the  memorial  from  Joachim’s  hand  ; 
and  without  reading,  without  ever  glancing  at  it,  flung  it  into  the 
fire,  where  it  was  instantly  consumed.  ‘Now,  at  last,’  said  he, 
‘  there  is  no  obstacle  to  our  going  to  Rome.’  ” 

The  rest  of  his  life,  which  was  yet  prolonged  till  the  20th  of 
August,  1823,  is  comparatively  uninteresting.  Like  the  stream  that 
has  been  turned  from  its  course,  and  guided  among  rocks,  and  over 
precipices,  without  losing  itself  for  a  moment,  it  now  returns  to  its 
channel,  and  glides  tranquilly  on  to  its  term.  Not  that  Europe,  or 
its  afiairs  were  settled,  liut  the  great  convulsion  was  over,  and  its 


312 


LECTURE  OF  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


condition  might  be  compai*ed  to  the  heaving  of  the  ocean  after  the 
stormy  spirit  that  had  roused  its  depth  has  passed  away. 

Such  was  the  life  of  Pius  VII., — cast  in  the  most  eventful  period 
which  Christianity  ever  witnessed.  I  have  selected  it,  not  because 
the  trusts  which  he  had  to  protect  amid  the  strife  of  so  many  con 
tending  elements  may  have  any  special  interest  for  you,  but  because, 
as  tests  of  human  character,  they  might  serve  for  illusti’ations  as  well 
as  any  other;  and  another  reason,  permit  me  to  add,  that  I  might 
not  treat  a  subject  altogether  foreign  to  my  profession,  when,  con¬ 
sulting  my  inclination  rather  than  my  ability,  I  accepted  the  invita¬ 
tion  with  which  your  society  honored  me.  The  play  of  physical 
force,  by  human  agency,  in  the  outward  world,  and  the  antagonism 
of  resistance  of  the  same  order,  are  but  the  visible  exhibition  of 
forces  and  antagonism  of  another  order  in  the  human  mind.  And 
in  this  department,  how  rich  and  instructive  is  the  period  to  which 
we  refer.  What  ardent  hopes,  what  trembling  fears,  what  daring 
resolves,  what  vacillations,  what  fidelities,  what  treacheries,  what 
courage,  what  inconstancies,  what  defections  and  untruth  of  charac¬ 
ter,  preceded  or  followed  the  march  of  outward  events  during  this 
dazzling  and  astounding  period?  Amid  all  this,  I  did  think  it 
would  not  be  unwelcome  to  you  to  contemplate  one  mind  preserv¬ 
ing  its  meek  but  lofty  independence ;  poised  on  its  own  apprecia¬ 
tion  of  eternal  principle,  and  capable  of  discarding  all  the  influences 
of  personal  selfishness — it  was  in  the  mind  of  the  prisoner  of  Savona. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  we  contemplate  the  martial  pomp,  the 
gorgeous  displays  of  courts  and  camps,  the  brilliant  achievements 
and  the  many  and  dazzling  glories  and  greatness,  so  called  of  the 
time,  and  ask  ourselves  how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  of  all  that 
remains  to  the  end  of  the  generation  that  witnessed  it  ?  our  minds 
are  overwhelmed  with  a  vague  and  painful  sense  of  disappointment, 
and  if  we  find  utterance  at  all,  it  must  be  to  exclaim,  “  God,  God 
alone  is  great !”  Man  is  unquestionably  great,  also,  in  his  way ; 
but  then  “  bis  breath  is  in  his  nostrils.” 


CIRCULAR  LETTER. 


313 


Circular  Letter  of  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes, 

INVITING  ALL  THE  CLERGY  OF  HIS  DIOCESE  TO  A  SPIRITUAL 

RETREAT,  AND  CONVOKING  THE  FIRST  DIOCESAN  SYNOD. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir : — The  duty  of  administering  the  sacraments 
and  discharging  the  sacred  functions  of  the  holy  ministry  with 
which  we  are  entrusted,  in  a  manner  that  may  be  as  conformable  as 
the  circumstances  of  our  missions  will  admit  to  the  regulations  and 
requirements  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  renders  it  exjjedient  that  a 
system  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  for  the  whole  diocese  should  be 
adopted  with  as  little  delay  as  possible.  The  want  of  churches  for 
the  appropriate  celebration  of  the  divine  mysteries,  the  paucity  of 
clergymen,  the  scattered  and  unsettled  state  of  the  faithful,  and 
the  other  deficiencies  incident  to  new  missions,  reqiure  that  many 
unavoidable  departures  from  the  wise  and  salutary  regulations 
laid  down  for  our  guidance  by  the  authority  of  the  Church  should 
be  tolerated  by  the  bishop.  The  time,  however,  has  now  arrived 
when,  it  is  believed  that  these  irregularities,  resulting  from  the 
necessity  of  circumstances,  may  be  diminished,  if  not  entirely  re¬ 
moved. 

The  Decrees  of  the  Bishops  passed  at  the  Provincial  Synods  in 
Baltimore  contain  many  regulations  applicable  to  the  circumstances 
of  each  diocese,  as  well  as  to  those  of  the  province  at  large.  From 
these,  and  from  the  experience  of  the  clergy,  we  hope  to  be  furnished 
with  the  necessary  information  to  enable  us  to  draw  up  such  rules 
as  may  tend  to  promote  both  order  and  uniformity  in  whatever  ap¬ 
pertains  to  the  House  of  God. 

With  this  view,  then,  reverend  and  dear  sir,  we  invite  and  request 
you  to  attend  the  Spiritual  Retreat  of  all  the  Clergy,  to  be  con- 
ducted  by  the  Very  Rev.  John  Timon,  and  to  commence  immedi¬ 
ately  after  Vespers  on  Sunday  the  21st  of  August,  in  the  Chapel  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  at  St.  John’s  College,  Rose  Hill. 

The  Retreat  will  continue  during  eight  days.  The  Diocesan  Sy¬ 
nod  will  be  held  during  the  first  three  days  of  the  week  following. 
We  hope  that  nothing  less  than  the  weightiest  reason  will  prevent 
any  of  the  clergy  from  attending.  Should  such  reason  exist,  how¬ 
ever,  in  any  particular  case,  we  wish  to  be  advised  of  it  as  early  as 
possible. 

The  attendance  of  the  clergy  at  the  Retreat  and  Synod,  will  re¬ 
quire  their  absence  from  their  congregations  on  two  successive  Sun¬ 
days,  and  not  more,  except,  perhaps,  for  a  few  living  in  the  extreme 
western  portions  of  the  diocese.  You  will  see  what  inconvenience 
might  result  from  this  absence,  in  reference  to  the  sick,  or  others ; 
and  your  zeal  will  anticipate  it  as  far  as  pastoral  vigilance  and  fore¬ 
sight  will  enable. 

Besides  any  books  which  you  may  choose  for  your  private  devo- 


314 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  PASTORAL 


tion  during  the  exercises  of  the  Retreat,  you  will  bring  with  you, 
or  procure,  one  copy  of  the  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and 
one  copy  of  the  statutes  of  the  Baltimore  Provincial  Councils. 
You  will  bring  also  with  you,  cassock,  surplice  and  stole;  and  if 
you  can,  without  great  inconvenience,  the  whole  suit  of  sacerdotal 
vestments. 

On  arriving  in  the  city,  you  will  apply  to  the  Rev.  Wm.  Starrs, 
at  the  Episcopal  residence,  263  Mulberry  Street,  who  will  direct  you 
to  the  College,  where  all  things  w’ill  be  in  readiness  for  your  recep¬ 
tion  and  accommodation. 

Your  aflectionate  friend  and  servant  in  Christ  our  Lord, 

^  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop  of  Basileopolis, 
Coadjutor  of  the  Bishop,  and  Administrator 
of  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 

William  Starrs,  Secretary. 

Hew  Yor\  July  28iA,  1842. 


PASTOKAL  OF  BISHOP  HUG-HES, 

IN  REGAKD  TO  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS, 
SECRET  SOCIETIES,  AND  THE  “TRUSTEE  SYSTEM”  IN  RE¬ 
FERENCE  TO  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

(The  following  pastoral  of  Bishop  Hughes  possesses  peculiar  in¬ 
terest,  as  the  one  issued  by  him  after  the  meeting  of  the  first 
Diocesan  Synod,  prmcipally  against  the  lay  “  Trustee  System,” 
then  so  prevalent  in  his  diocese,  a  system  which  gave  him  much 
trouble,  and  was  the  cause  of  great  scandal  to  the  Catholic  com¬ 
munity.) 

J OHN,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  and  the  appointment  of  the  Holy  See, 
Bishop  of  Basileopolis,  Coadjutor  to  the  Bishop,  and  Administra¬ 
tor  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  Grace  and  Peace  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Venerable  Brethren  of  the  Clergy^  and  beloved  Children  of  the  Laity  : 

The  sacred  exercises  in  which  the  clergy  have  been  so  lately  en¬ 
gaged,  followed  as  they  have  been  by  the  convocation  of  the  first 
Diocesan  Synod,  require  that  we  should  address  you,  according  to 
the  duties  of  the  office  to  which,  though  unworthy,  we  have  been 
appointed.  We  cannot  but  congratulate  you,  venerable  brethren 
of  the  clergy,  on  the  promptness  and  zeal  with  which  you  have 
gone  through  these  exercises,  not  Avithout  much  advantage  to  your¬ 
selves  and  edification  to  the  faithful  committed  to  your  pastoral 
charge.  The  greatest  evidence  of  the  divine  goodness  towards  the 
faithful,  is  the  appointment  and  preservation  of  pastors  deejily  im¬ 
bued  with  the  hohness  and  responsibility  of  their  stations.  And 


ON  CHUECH  PEOPEETY,  ETC. 


315 


whilst  humbled  ourselves  with  a  consciousness  of  our  own  unwor 
thiness,  we,  according  to  the  duties  incumbent  on  the  episcopal 
office,  shall  leave  nothing  undone  to  co-operate  with  the  merciful 
designs  of  God,  to  save  the  souls  committed  to  our  charge  from  tlie 
most  awful  evidence  of  his  displeasure,  which  would  be  the  presence 
and  ministry  of  faithless  and  unworthy  pastors.  We  rejoice  not 
only  in  tlie  zeal  and  constancy  of  your  labors,  but  also  in  the  antici- 
2“)ation  of  an  increase  of  the  same  virtues,  from  the  edification  and 
earnestness  with  which  you  have  gone  through  the  sacred  occupa¬ 
tions  of  the  Retreat,  and  with  which  you  have  acquiesced  in  and 
advocated  those  salutary  enactments  of  the  Synod,  for  the  govern¬ 
ment  both  of  the  faithful  and  the  ecclesiastical  life  itself. 

These  statutes  are  such  as  it  is  competent  for  the  bishop  to  enact 
by  his  own  sacred  office,  from  which  in  fact  their  force  is  exclusively 
derived.  .  Nevertheless,  we,  in  the  full  assurance  of  your  zeal  to  co¬ 
operate  in  whatever  might  tend  to  the  external  order  and  beauty  of 
the  House  of  God,  considered  ourselves  as  bound  to  avail  ourselves 
of  your  experience  and  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  of  the  differ¬ 
ent  congregations  over  which  you  are  jilaced,  before  we  should  enact 
any  disciplinary  statutes  that  might  be  in  violent  conflict  wdth  those 
circumstances,  or  might  be  premature  and  too  difficult  to  be  exe¬ 
cuted.  It  is  on  this  account,  that  though  we  judged  of  the  measures 
that  might  be  necessary  in  the  discipline  of  this  Diocese,  we  did  not 
wish  to  adopt  or  enforce  them,  without  having  first  had  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  consultation  and  advice  with  and  from  you,  who  are  in  co¬ 
operation  in  the  same  divine  work  of  our  blessed  Redeemer.  We 
give  thanks  to  God  for  the  zeal,  charity,  devotion,  and  unanimity  of 
sentiment  with  which  you  surrounded  us  during  the  Synod,  and  in 
the  deliberations  on  every  statute  submitted  by  us  for  your  consid¬ 
eration. 

It  remains  now  for  us  to  address  some  remarks  to  our  beloved 
childi'en  of  the  laity,  on  the  nature  and  advantages  of  the  delibera¬ 
tions  in  which  we  have  been  engaged,  and  on  the  laws  for  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  discipline  of  this  diocese,  in  the  enactment  of  which  those 
deliberations  have  resulted. 

The  first  great  department  of  the  subject  which  demanded  our 
attention  was  the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  These  divine 
institutions  are  the  channels  appointed  by  the  Redeemer  of  men  to 
perpetuate  and  apply  in  his  Church  forever,  and  under  sensible  forms, 
the  merits  of  that  blood  which  He  shed  for  the  redemption  of  all 
men.  Our  deliberations  could  not  relate  to  the  divine  efficacy  of 
these  outward  signs,  nor  to  the  dispositions  on  the  2)art  of  those 
having  recourse  to  them,  essential  to  the  interior  and  S2)iritual 
effects.  But  the  Church  of  God,  enriched  with  the  awful  trust  of 
dispensing  the  mysteries  of  God,  has  provided,  from  the  earliest 
times,  salutary  rules  for  the  external  rites,  times,  manner,  and  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  their  administration.  It  was  her  mind  that  as  she  has 
thus  prescribed,  so  her  ministers  should  fulfill  the  sacred  functions 
assigned  to  their  office.  But  the  spirit  of  divine  wisdom  which  God 


316 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’  PASTORAL 


has  promised  and  imparted  to  that  Chureh,  in  the  exercise  of  her 
supreme  prerogative,  did  not  enjoin  the  absolute  necessity  of  adher¬ 
ing  to  these  external  prescriptions  under  all  variety  of  circumstances. 
Hence  she  has  ever  been  accustomed  to  dispense  with  her  own  laws, 
where  essential  things  were  not  involved,  in  every  case  in  which  the 
external  circumstances  of  any  portion  of  the  Church,  in  its  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  world,  rendered  the  observance  of  these  laws  imprac¬ 
ticable.  Such  were  the  circumstances  of  the  forefathers  of  most  of 
iis  under  the  temporal  dominion  of  the  British  empire.  The  laws 
which  made  it  a  crime  for  the  ministers  of  our  holy  religion  to 
officiate  at  all ;  which  banished  them  from  their  country  and  their 
home ;  which  dispossessed  them  of  their  temples,  erected  by  the 
j)iety  and  zeal  of  their  ancestors,  and  left  them  no  place  Avherein  to 
offer  sacrifice  to  their  God,  and  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  re¬ 
ligion  to  his  people,  but  the  lonely  glen  and  the  humble  habitation 
of  some  poor  member  of  the  flock,  where  they  might  discharge  the 
sacred  functions  of  their  ministry,  not  only  abridged  of  all  external 
rite  and  ceremony,  but  also  in  secret,  and,  as  it  were,  by  stealth, 
necessarily  deprived  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  of  all  out¬ 
ward  ritual  solemnity,  except  what  was  barely  necessary  to  realize 
the  conditions  on  Avhich  their  efficacy  depended. 

Thus  it  has  happened,  that  the  origin  of  what  is  a  departure  from 
the  ordinary  laws  and  usages  of  the  Catholic  Church,  may  be  traced 
to  the  times  in  Avhich  their  absence  was  amply  compensated  for,  by 
the  constancy,  the  privations,  sufferings,  and  general  condition  of 
martyrdom,  by  which  her  children  in  the  British  empire  were  for 
generations  and  ages  exposed. 

But,  thanks  be  to  Almighty  God,  the  immortality  of  that  religion 
has  enabled  it  to  triumph  over  the  persecutions  with  which  it  has  been 
assailed  ;  and  the  scenes  Avhich  have  witnessed  its  humiliation,  and 
persecutions  unto  death,  like  those  of  its  Divine  Master,  have  Avit- 
iiessed  also,  and  are  Avitnessing  every  day,  its  glorious  resurrection. 

The  circumstances  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  this  happy  country, 
in  which  the  rio-hts  of  conscience  and  the  immunities  of  religious 
freedom  are  secured  to  all  men,  have  been  extensively  modified  and 
influenced  by  the  persecutions  which  she  had  to  undergo  in  other 
lands.  The  usages  which  prevailed  in  the  lands  of  bondage,  Avere 
the  first  to  which  Ave  became  accustomed,  where  bondage  is  un- 
knoAvn.  Neither  Avas  it  practicable,  nor  expedient,  to  enforce  pre¬ 
maturely  the  laAvs  of' the  Church  in  the  neAV  circumstances  of  this 
country.  Hence  the  bishojDS  of  this  diocese  haA^e  tolerated  customs 
which  the  Church  did  not  approve,  but  merely  bore  Avith,  until  a 
better  order  could  be  introduced.  That  time  seems  at  length  to 
have  arrived.  The  statutes  which  have  been  enacted  and  promul¬ 
gated,  have  for  their  object  this  return  to  the  ordinary  and  regular 
discipline  of  the  Church.  Some  have  reference  to  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments.  It  has  been  customary  to  administer  the  sacra¬ 
ment  of  Baptism  in  private  houses.  Henceforth  it  will  not  be  lawful 
for  the  clergymen  so  to  administer  it,  Avherever  there  is  a  Church 


Olf  CHURCH  PROPERTY,  ETC. 


317 


within  the  distance  of  three  miles,  except  when  the  infant  may  he 
in  danger  of  death ;  and  then,  though  it  will  he  proper  to  send  for 
the  clergyman,  yet  in  case  he  cannot  he  found,  the  faithful  should 
understand  the  manner  of  baptizing,  and  should  administer  the  sac¬ 
rament,  rather  than  leave  the  child  to  die  without  receiving  baptism. 
It  is  required  by  the  laws  of  the  Church,  that  baptismal  fonts  should 
be  erected  in  the  different  churches  ;  that  at  these  fonts  children 
should  be  presented  for  baptisin ;  that  the  register  of  such  baptism 
should  be  at  hand,  and  the  names  of  the  child,  wdth  its  age,  and  of 
the  parents  and  sponsors,  should  be  carefully  recorded.  The  incon¬ 
veniences  and  indignities  to  which  the  sacrament  was  frequently 
exposed,  when  administered  in  private  dwellings,  have  often  afilicted 
the  hearts  of  zealous  and  pious  clergymen.  We  have  no  reason  to 
doubt,  but  that  the  same  feeling  of  reverence  and  respect  for  that 
sacrament  will  induce  the  faithful  to  acquiesce  in  this  fetxirn  to  the 
regular  practice  of  'the  Catholic  Church,  wdth  as  much  eagerness  as 
has  been  manifested  by  the  reverend  clergy  themselves. 

Other  statutes,  having  for  their  object  a  similar  return  to  the  laws 
of  the  Church,  have  been  enacted  in  reference  to  the  sacraments  of 
Confirmation,  Penance,  and  the  Holy  Eucharist.  On  them  it  is  at 
present  unnecessary  to  dwell,  as  the  faithful  will  become  acquainted 
■with  them  through  the  instructions  of  their  pastors,  and  by  the  rules 
prescribed  to  be  observed  in  the  administration  of  these  divine 
institutions. 

The  abuses  and  sacrileges  that  have  been  attempted,  from  time  to 
time,  and  in  too  many  instances  carried  into  effect,  in  regard  to 
Matrimony,  have  demanded  the  enactment  of  rigid  laws  in  reference 
to  the  clergy,  wdien  called  upon  to  officiate  in  the  solemn  rite  of 
Christian  marriage.  Abandoned  persons  of  both  sexes,  have  fre¬ 
quently  dared  to  apply  for  the  rite  of  a  second  marriage,  whilst  they 
knew  they  were  bound  by  the  obligations  of  a  first  contract,  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  which  they  either  concealed,  or,  sometimes,  denied.  At 
other  times,  hasty  and  inconsiderate  marriages  have  presented  them¬ 
selves  for  the  sanction  of  the  Church.  The  effect  of  such  proceeding 
was  to  leave  the  clergyman,  called  upon  to  officiate,  no  time  to  inform 
himself  of  the  character  of  the  parties,  or  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  were  about  to  enter  these  solemn  engagements.  Neither 
was  it  possible  for  the  parties  themselves,  even  when  there  existed 
Jio  impediment  to  their  marriage,  to  prepare  for  the  reception  of 
that  sacrament,  in  the  manner  required  by  the  Catholic  faith,  and  by 
the  solemn  injunctions  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  INIatrimony  being  a 
sacrament  of  the  living,  and  not  of  the  dead,  as  l>a])tism  and  Pen¬ 
ance,  ought  to  be  received  in  the  state  of  grace.  When  we  reflect 
on  the  abuses  of  this  divine  institution,  it  can  no  longer  be  surpris¬ 
ing  that  so  many  of  these  marriages,  hastily  arranged,  and  entered 
into  in  a  manner  violating  the  laws  of  the  Christian  Church,  should 
be  followed  by  that  disappointment  and  misery  which  mark  the 
absence  of  the  divine  blessing.  In  order  to  protect  this  sacred  and 
holy  state  from  similar  abuses,  in  the  time  to  come,  we  have  forbid- 


318 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  PASTORAL 


den  the  clergy,  under  severe  penalties,  to  perform  any  marriage,  of 
which  notice  shall  not  have  been  given  by  one  or  both  of  the  parties, 
at  least  four  days  previous.  We  have  also  ado^ited  the  laws  that 
have  been  enjoined  by  the  Provincial  Councils  of  Baltimore,  Avith 
the  approbation  of  the  Holy  See,  on  the  subject  of  mixed  marriages  ; 
that  is,  marriages  between  Catholics  and  persons  of  other  religious 
persuasions.  These  marriages,  though  tolerated  under  certain  mod¬ 
ifications,  have  ever  been  looked  upon  with  regret  and  affliction  by 
our  Holy  Mother  the  Church.  The  condition,  Avithout  which  they 
haA"e  never  been  permitted,  in  this  country  or  elseAvhere,  is,  that  the 
party  not  Catholic  should  be  pledged  by  solemn  promise  to  allow 
entire  liberty  of  conscience,  and  right  to  the  practice  of  religion,  to 
the  C^atholic  party;  and  that  all  the  offspring  of  such  marriages 
should  be  baptized  and  educated  in  the  Catholic  faith.  Without  this 
condition,  such  marriages  are  not  only  disapproA^ed,  but  condemned 
and  reprobated  by  the  Church. 

In  order  to  guard  the  sacred  ministry  from  being  made  accessoiy, 
ev'en  in  appearance,  to  the  aAAfflul  crime  of  bigamy,  the  most  clear 
proofs  are  to  be  exacted  by  the  clergy,  before  they  can  officiate,  that 
the  parties  applying  are  qualified  to  enter  into  these  solemn  engage¬ 
ments,  and  are  bound  by  no  other. 

We  enter  thus  into  an  exposition  of  these  statutes,  to  advise  the 
faithful  at  large  of  their  existence,  as  the  ecclesiastical  laAV  of  this 
diocese,  and  to  show  that  Avhen  the  faithful  are  insisted  on  to  comply 
Avith  them,  the  requirement  is  not  merely  the  will  of  the  pastor,  but 
the  laAV,  from  Avhich  neither  he  nor  the  people  committed  to  his  care 
are  at  liberty  to  deviate. 

Another  subject  to  Avhich  our  attention  has  been  directed,  is  the 
existence  and  evils  of  certain  societies,  constituted  on  principles  not 
recognized  or  apjiroved  by  the  Church.  They  are  generally  desig¬ 
nated  as  “  Secret  Societies,”  and  hav'e,  for  the  most  part,  some  pro¬ 
fessed  object  of  benevolence,  AAfflich  is  used  as  an  inducement  to" 
engage  neAV  members,  and  to  recommend  such  associations  to  public 
favor. 

Noav  the  members  of  the  Catholic  Church  ought  to  know  that  it 
is  not  laAvful  for  them  to  engage  in  the  membership  of  any  associa¬ 
tion,  not  consistent  Avith  their  duties  as  members  of  that  great  Uni- 
A  ersal  Society,  founded  by  our  Redeemer,  knoAAm  as  the  Church,  and 
Avhicli  embraces  all  the  good  that  man  is  capable  of  accomplishing 
in  this  Avorld.  If  they  wished  to  perform  charities,  the  rules  of 
religion  direct  the  manner,  and  their  felloAV-members  and  neighbors 
furnish  perpetual  occasion  for  its  exercise.  But  wherever  some  pai’- 
tial  good  is  set  forth,  as  the  end  and  aim  of  any  separate  society, 
unless -all  its  duties  be  public  and  left  free,  the  faithful  ought  to  be 
on  their  guard,  lest  there  be  connected  Avith  it  something  Avhich  is 
not  made  public,  but  by  virtue  of  Avhich  they  AAdio  enter  become  im¬ 
plicated  in  snares  that  prove  fixtal  to  their  salvation. 

Again,  there  is  connected  with  the  membership  of  these  associa¬ 
tions,  either  an  oath,  or  some  solemn  religious  obligation,  binding 


ON  CHURCH  PROPERTY,  ETC. 


319 


the  members  to  the  performance  of  duties,  so  called,  with  which 
they  are  at  the  time  necessarily  unacquainted,  and  which  depend  on 
future  contingencies,  altogether  beyond  their  control.  The  conse¬ 
quence  is,  that,  in  fulfilling  these  duties,  they  are  not  unfrequently 
required  to  violate  the  laws  of  God,  and  perhaps  the  laws  of  the 
land.  Hence  arises  the  incompatibility  of  these  twofold  obligations  ; 
when,  what  is  required  by  their  society  imjjlies  a  violation  of  what 
is  required  by  their  Christian  Association  of  Membership  in  the 
Catholic  Church.  Besides,  it  is  absolutely  forbidden  by  the  laws 
of  religion,  to  take  any  oath  or  solemn  obligation  of  a  religious 
nature,  which  implies  an  appeal  to  God,  as  the  witness  of  what  we 
say,  except  in  circumstances  and  on  conditions  altogether  wanting 
in  the  organization  of  these  Secret  Societies.  Hence,  by  taking 
such  oath  or  obligation,  the  individual  transgresses  the  laws  of  God ; 
and  so  long  as  he  perseveres  in  the  transgressions,  is,  necessarily, 
shut  out  from  the  privileges  of  the  sacraments  and  graces  of  the 
Church.  These  associations  have  been  originated  and  continued, 
for  the  most  part,  by  men  who  have  had  no  other  end  in  view  than 
their  own  private  advantage,  and  for  this  have  not  scrupled  to  vio¬ 
late  the  most  sacred  obligations  of  religion,  and  to  involve  their 
unfortunate  dupes  not  only  in  sin  and  evil  practices,  but  oftentimes 
in  disorders  and  quarrels,  in  which  blood  has  been  shed,  and  the 
shedding  of  it  expiated  on  the  gallows !  Now  we  warn  and  admon¬ 
ish  all  the  faithful  coinmitted  to  our  charge,  if  any  are  involved  in 
such  associations,  to  withdraw  from  them  with  as  little  delay  as 
possible ;  and  also,  as  a  rule  of  safety  and  precaution,  we  entreat  all 
others  not  to  yoke  themselves  in  the  membership  of  such  associa¬ 
tions  without  having  first  asked  leave  of  their  respective  pastors  or 
clergymen,  whether  they  can  do  so  without  cuttmg  themselves  off 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church. 

In  the  mean  time  we  have  directed,  in  obedience  to  the  laws  of 
^)ur  holy  religion  and  the  duties  of  our  office,  that  no  clergyman  in 
this  diocese,  shall  admit  to  any  sacrament  of  the  Church,  such  per¬ 
sons  as,  forgetting  their  fidelity  to  her,  involve  themselves  in  the 
dangerous  and  sinful  associations  already  alluded  to ;  or  in  any  secret 
society,  or  combination,  held  together  by  any  solemn  religious  obli¬ 
gation,  whether  it  be  in  the  form  of  an  oath  or  otherwise,  of  similar 
import.  Neither  shall  it  be  lawful  for  any  clergyman  in  this  diocese 
to  officiate  at  the  funeral,  or  over  the  remains  of  any  one  dying 
without  having  renounced  all  connection  with  such  society,  if  it  liad 
been  his  misfortune  to  have  been  so  involved.  This  statute  shall  be 
rigidly  adhered  to  ;  and  any  clergyman  who  shall  have  overlooked, 
disregarded,  or  neglected  to  enforce  it,  shall  not  be  considered  wor¬ 
thy  to  exercise  the  holy 'ministry. 

One  of  the  most  jierplexing  questions  connected  with  the  well¬ 
being  of  religion,  is  the  tenure  and  administration  of  ecclesiastical 
property.  A  system,  growing,  perhaps,  out  of  the  circumstances 
of  the  times,  has  prevailed  in  this  country  which  is  without  a  parallel 
in  any  other  nation,  or  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Catholic  Clmrch. 


320 


ARCHBISHOP  HTJGHES’  PASTORAL 


That  system  is,  of  leaving  ecclesiastical  property  under  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  laymen,  who  are  commonly  designated  “trustees.”  We 
do  not  disguise,  that  our  conviction  of  this  system  is,  that  it  is  alto¬ 
gether  injurious  to  religion,  and  not  less  injurious  to  the  piety  and 
religious  character  of  those  who,  from  time  to  time,  are  called  upon 
TO  execute  its  offices.  We  have  known  many  trustees,  and  we  have 
never  known  one  to  retire  from  the  office  a  better  Catholic  or  a  more 
pious  man  than  he  was  when  he  entered  on  it.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
we  have  known  many,  who,  on  retiring  from  that  office,  were  found 
to  have  lost,  not  only  much  of  their  religious  feeling,  but  also  much 
of  their  faith  ;  from  whom  their  families  have  derived,  perhaps,  the 
tirst  impulse  in  that  direction  which  so  many  have  taken,  of  aliena¬ 
tion  from  the  Church,  and  attachment  to  some  of  the  sectarian  doc¬ 
trines  ^by  which  they  were  surrounded.  We  might  appeal  with 
great  confidence  to  the  experience  of  both  the  clergy  and  the  laity, 
who  have  lived  long  Inough  amongst  us,  to  witness  the  effects  of 
this  system,  and  to  attest  that  where  it  has  not  been  as  we  have  just 
described,  it  has  acted  according  to  the  exception  and  not  to  the  rule. 
These  consequences  ought  to  make  us  pause  and  reflect.  Is  it  that, 
in  the  proposed  necessity  of  discussing  sacred  things,  connected 
with  public  worship,  they  lose  the  reverence  due  to  them  ?  Or,  is 
it,  that  the  Almighty  would  thus  manifest  his  displeasure  at  the 
introduction  into  his  religion  of  an  order  not  appointed  by  Him  in 
the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  without  precedent  in  her  history  ? 
We  know  not.  But  the  fact  cannot  have  escaped  the  observation 
of  any  one,  and  is  worthy  of  our  deep  and  solemn  reflection. 

Yet,  lamentable  as  are  these  facts,  they  are  not  precisely,  after 
all,  those  which  call  upon  us  in  the  discharge  of  our  episcopal  duty 
for  the  exercise  of  the  authority  wfith  which  we  are  invested.  After 
what  relates  to  the  purity  of  faith  and  morals,  and  the  soundness 
of  discipline,  the  next  most  imperative  duty  of  the  episcopal  office 
is  to  watch  over,  guard  and  preserve,  the  ecclesiastical  property 
of  his  diocese,  for  the  sacred  purposes  in  view  of  which  it  was 
created. 

N o w,  ecclesiastical  property  is  that,  and  all  that,  which  the  faith¬ 
ful  contribute  from  religious  motives  and  for  religious  pm-poses.  It 
is  the  Church,  the  cemetery,  and  all  estate  thereto  belonging.  It 
is  the  pew  rents,  the  collections,  and  all  the  moneys  derived  from 
or  for  the  benefit  of  religion.  It  is  the  sacred  furniture  of  the 
House  of  God.  In  a  word,  it  is  all  that  exists  for  ecclesiastical  pur¬ 
poses.  According  to  the  laws  of  the  Church  and  the  usage  of  all 
nations,  such  jiroperty,  though  it  must  be  protected  by  human  laws, 
as  other  material  property,  yet,  being  once  brought  into  existence 
in  the ’form,  and  for  the  uses  of  religion,  is  considered  as  if  it  were 
the  property  of  God :  which  cannot  be  violated,  alienated,  or  waste- 
fully  squandered,  without  (besides  the  ordinary  injustice  as  if  it 
were  common  property)  the  additional  guilt  of  a  kind  of  sacrilege. 
It  is  not  considered,  in  the  Canon  law,  either  the  property  of  the 
bishop,  or  the  proj)erty  of  his  clergy,  or  the  projierty  of  the  peo- 


OIT  CHURCH  PROPERTY,  ETC. 


321 


pie ;  but  as  tbe  property  of  God — for  the  religious  use  of  them  all. 
Hence,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to  preserve  it ;  but  to  preserve  not  with 
the  care  which  Avould  be  sufficient  in  m.atters  of  a  secular  character, 
but  under  a  sense  of  the  awful  responsibility  involved  in  such  ad¬ 
ministration.  In  the  enactments  of  the  Canon  law,  the  highest 
functionaries  of  the  hierarchy  itself  were  not  alloAved  to  undertake 
their  administration,  whithout  having  first  taken  an  oath  that  they 
would  administer,  preserve,  and  transmit  it,  as  above  described. 

From  this  you  will  easily  understand,  venerable  brethren  of  the 
clergy,  and  beloved  children  of  the  laity,  Iioav  great  has  been  our 
departure  from  the  holy  and  the  wise  provision  of  the  Church,  in  re¬ 
lation  to  ecclesiastical  property.  Instead  of  taking  those  provisions 
for  our  model,  we  have  imitated  the  secular  or  sectarian  examples 
by  Avhich  Ave  are  surrounded ; — and  that  sacred  property  has  been 
managed  as  if  it  Avere  in  a  state  ov^er  Avhich.our  trustees  could  ex¬ 
ercise  absolute  control,  according  to  their  judgment  and  will.  And 
if  Ave  should  be  struck  first,  and  most  sensibly,  with  the  spiritual 
evils  Avhich  it  has  entailed,  by  destroying  or  diminishing  the  rever¬ 
ence  and  piety  of  those  most  familiar  with  it,  by  giving  occasion  to 
strifes,  and  contentions,  and  scandals  in  congregations ;  Ave  are, 
nevertheless,  deeply  sensible  of  the  evils  that  have  resulted  in  the 
mismanagement  and  misappropriation  of  that  sacred  property  itself. 
These  evils  have  not  arisen  from  the  want  of  integrity  on  the  part 
of  the  trustees,  but  appear  to  us  to  be  inherent  in  the  system,  and 
inseparable  from  it.  Indeed,  it  can  hardly  be  otherwise.  W e  have 
but  to  reflect,  for  a  moment,  on  the  manner  in  which  it  has 
operated. 

In  the  first  place,  we  know  that  the  persons  usually  appointed, 
and  especially  in  the  commencement  of  congregations,  are  by  no 
means  competent  in  point  of  capacity.  This  is  strikingly  evident 
AvheneA’er  it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  their  official  proceedings,  as 
recorded  in  their  minutes,  or  to  their  books  of  accounts.  N otAvith- 
standing  this  incapacity,  they  are  conscious  to  themselves  of  upright 
intentions ;  and  this  very  consciousness  renders  them  less  disposed 
to  be  guided  by  others.  In  building  churches,  and  in  managing 
their  affairs  Avhen  they  are  built,  their  reliance  in  the  main  has  been 
on  the  credit  by  AAdiich  they  may  be  enabled  to  borroAV.  If  they 
Avere  to  be  personally  responsible  for  moneys  thus  borroAved, 
they  themselves  Avould  be  the  first  to  feel  the  inconveniences  and 
dangers  of  the  practice.  But  they  are  responsible  only  in  their 
official  capacity — ’that  is,  the  ecclesiastical  property  of  Avhich  Ave 
have  spoken  above,  becomes  pledged  to  creditors,  by  mortgage  or 
otherwise,  for  the  consequences  of  their  transactions.  Then  they 
are  stimulated  by  the  laudable  desire  to  have  a  respectable  church, 
and  this  expeditiously  finished.  Besides  this,  there  is  still  another 
d.anger,  Avhich  is,  that  they  hav'e  reason  to  calculate  on  being  dis¬ 
placed  from  office,  and  their  successors  appointed,  before  the  j^eriod 
when  it  Avill  be  necessary  to  meet  their  engagements.  Thus  one  set 
of  trustees  contracts  the  debt,  Avith  the  idea  that,  not  on  them,  but 
21 


322 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  PASTORAL. 


on  their  successors,  will  devolve  the  obligation  of  payment.  These 
successors  come  into  office,  and  feel  that,  if  bad  contracts  and  ex¬ 
travagant  expenditures  have  been  made,  it  was  not  by  them,  but  by 
their  predecessors ;  and  if  they  add  no  more  to  the  debts,  or  the 
expenditures,  they  do  not  feel  that  their  duty  requires  more  than  to 
devise  ways  and  means  for  paying  the  interest,  and  so  transmit  the 
burthen,  undiminished,  to  their  successors ; — and  thus  it  goes  on, 
and  we  find  that,  at  the  present  time,  the  churches  of  this  city  in 
particular,  are  burthened  with  a  debt  equal  to  what  they  are  worth. 
Neither  is  this  the  only  inconvenience  resulting  from  the  system. 
We  are  well  aware  that  at  all  times  there  have  been  in  the  boards 
of  trustees,  men  most  anxious  to  diminish  the  debts  of  the  churches 
with  which  they  were  connected.  Now,  this  could  only  be  done, 
either  by  raising  collections  from  the  charity  and  zeal  of  the  faithful, 
or  by  creating  a  larger  revenue.  The  former  has  been  found  im¬ 
practicable.  It  seems,  as  if  in  the  very  feelings  of  the  people,  there 
is  a  natural  repugnance  to  contribute  charities  to  laymen  for  such 
purposes.  Sometimes  it  is  ascribed  to  want  of  confidence,  and  some¬ 
times  to  other  causes :  but,  at  all  events,  the  fact  is  a  matter  known  and 
acknowledged  by  all ;  and  perhaps  the  best  explanation  of  it  is,  that  it 
is  the  manifestation  of  a  religious  feeling  wffiich  thus  intimates  the  ab¬ 
sence  of  those  salutary  laws  regarding  such  property  which  the 
Church  has  established,  and  to  wffiich  the  faithful  are  accustomed  in 
all  other  countries.  The  other  means,  therefore,  namely,  that  of  in¬ 
creasing  the  revenue,  has  been  most  generally  employed.  This,  also, 
brought  with  it,  as  it  is  ever  likely  to  bring,  a  complicated  train  of 
serious  evils. 

How  awfully  low  is  the  character  of  religion  reduced  in  the  very 
necessity  which  obliges,  as  is  supposed,  trustees  to  deliberate  on  the 
best  mode  to  draw  large  congregations ;  and  this,  be  it  understood, 
not  for  the  salvation  of  the  souls  of  the  people  so  much  as  for  the 
revenue !  Hence,  in  the  appointment  of  clergymen  as  pastors,  it 
has  oftentimes  happened  that  the  only  merit  which  was  valued  by 
these  men  was  that  of  eloquence.  Piety,  learning,  zeal,  a  laborious 
industry  in  administering  the  sacraments,  were  all  good ;  but,  in 
connection  with  the  necessities  of  revenue,  were  deemed  of  compara¬ 
tively  little  importance,  if  the  clergyman  was  not,  at  the  same  time, 
what  was  called  a  good  preacher ; — who  would  cause  the  pews  to 
be  rented,  and  the  aisles  to  be  filled  with  people.  We  need  not 
enlarge  on  the  injuries  to  the  true  spirit  of  the  priesthood,  and  to  the 
religious  feelings  of  the  faithful,  which  must  ever  result  from  asso¬ 
ciation  with  such  councils  and  such  practices.  Neither  was  this  all. 
We  have  heard  the  influence  of  music  in  the  choirs,  and  that  even 
by  persons  w'hose  presence  in  the  church  at  all  could  afford  no 
edification,  calculated  upon  with  almost  equal  emphasis  as  the 
talents  of  the  pastor.  We  could  even  yet  enlarge  with  many  details 
on  the  abuses  of  this  kind,  which  w'e  know,  either  by  having  wit¬ 
nessed  them  ourselves,  or  by  the  attestation  of  others.  We  have 
sometimes  remonstrated  on  the  subject,  and  have  found  the  ready 


ON  CHURCH  PROPERTY,  ETC. 


323 


answer  to  be,  that  the  necessities  of  the  church  required  these 
things,  and  that  their  existence  should,  on  the  contrary,  be  taken  as 
evidence  of  the  zeal  and  financial  capacity  of  those  who  managed 
the  temporal  alfairs  of  the  congregation. 

Thus,  all  the  parts  of  this  system  of  leaving  church  property  under 
the  control  of  lay  managers,  acting  with  good  intentions,  if  you 
will,  but  without  any  responsibility,  are  so  linked  and  interwoven,  as 
causes  and  consequences  with  each  other,  that  they  constitute  one 
complex  whole.  We  do  not  enlarge  upon  other  topics  connected 
with  the  subject,  but  we  shall  simply  remark,  that  it  is  the  faithful, 
that  is,  the  Catholic  people  at  large,  who  must,  in  one  form  or  an¬ 
other,  pay  for  all  the  mistakes  and  errors  committed  by  trustees. 

W  e  can  bear  testimony  to  their  zeal,  to  their  liberality,  and  to  the 
sacrifices  which  they  are  ready  to  make  for  the  promotion  of  their 
religion  and  the  prosperity  of  the  Church.  But  liberality  and  sacrifices 
which  are  often  required,  and  yet  from  which  religion  derives  but 
little  benefit,  will  soon  deter  them  from  contributing,  merely  to  fur¬ 
nish  the  means  of  carrying  on  this  uucatholic  system. 

The  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  the  congregations  have 
been  formed,  were  such  as  rendered  it  apparently  expedient  to  leave 
these  matters  generally  to  the  discretion  of  the  congregations  them¬ 
selves.  The  time,  however,  has  arrived  when  modifications  are 
required,  not  only  for  the  order  and  decorum  of  ecclesiastical  rela¬ 
tions,  but  also  by  the  general  demand  of  the  people  themselves. 
We  have,  therefore,  directed  and  ordained,  by  the  statutes  of  the 
diocese,  that  henceforward,  no  body  of  lay  trustees,  or  lay  persons, 
by  whatever  name  called,  shall  be  permitted  to  appoint,  retain,  or 
dismiss,  any  person  connected  with  the  church — such  as  sexton, 
organist,  singers,  teachers,  or  other  persons  employed  in  connection 
Avith  religion  or  public  worship,  against  the  will  of  the  pastor,  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  ordinary.  We  have  ordained, 
likewise,  that  the  expenses  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
pastors,  and  the  support  of  religion,  shall,  in  no  case,  be  Avithheld 
or  denied,  if  the  congregations  are  able  to  aflbrd  them.  It  shall 
not  be  lawful  for  any  board  of  trustees,  or  other  lay  persons,  to  make 
use  of  the  church,  chapel,  basement,  or  other  portions  of  ground, 
or  edifices  consecrated  to  religion,  for  any  meeting,  having  a  secular, 
or  even  an  ecclesiastical  object,  wdthout  the  approval,  previously  had, 
of  the  pastor,  Avho  shall  be  accoiintable  to  the  bishop  for  his  deci¬ 
sion.  .^knd,  with  a  vieAV  to  arrest  the  evils  of  the  trustee  system  in 
expending  inconsiderately,  or  otherAvise,  the  property  of  the  faith¬ 
ful,  it  has  been  ordained,  as  a  statute  of  the  diocese,  that  no  board 
of  trustees  shall  be  at  liberty  to  vote,  expend,  or  appropriate  for 
contracts,  or  under  any  pretext,  any  portion  of  the  property  which 
they  are  appointed  to  administer  (excepting  the  current  expenses  as 
above  alluded  to),  without  the  express  approval  and  approbation  of 
the  pastor  in  every  case.  And  it  is  further  ordained,  that  even  thus, 
the  trustees  of  the  churches,  Avith  the  approbation  of  the  pastor, 
shall  not  be  at  liberty  to  expend  an  amount  larger  than  one  hundred 


324 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  PASTORAL 


dollars  in  any  one  year,  without  the  consent  of  the  bisnop  rtjjjntn  mg 
or  permitting  such  expenditure. 

One  of  the  first  and  most  explicit  decrees  of  the  Provincial 
Council  in  Baltimore,  directed  and  enjoined  on  the  bishops  of  this 
jirovince  that  they  should  not,  thenceforward,  consecrate  any  church 
therein,  unless  the  deed  had  been  previously  made,  in  trust  to  the 
bishop  thereof.  This  rule  has  hitherto  been  followed  strictly  by 
the  great  majoifity  of  the  episcopal  body;  and  wherever  it  has  been 
followed,  the  faithful  are  exempted  from  many  of  the  evils  to  which 
we  have  already  referred.  Religion  progresses — the  clergy  are  freed 
from  annoyances — their  ministry  is  resjiected — their  infiuence  with 
the  people  obtains  large  and  numerous  contributions,  for  the  erec¬ 
tion  or  improvement  of  churches,  and  the  danger  of  seeing  those 
sold  for  debt,  and  given  over  to  profanation,  is  alike  removed  from 
the  apprehensions  of  pastor  and  people.  In  proportion  to  their 
numbers,  the  multiplication  of  churches  has  been  as  great  among 
them  as  in  this  diocese,  and  yet  their  churches  are  almost,  if  not 
entirely  out  of  debt. 

Notwithstanding  the  feelings  that  must  arise  from  the  contrast 
of  their  situation  with  ours,  we  have,  for  what  appeared  weighty 
reasons,  hitherto  declined  executing  the  statutes  of  the  decrees  of  the 
Baltimore  Councils  on  this  subject.  In  the  first  place,  the  system 
existed  here  more,  perhaps,  than  in  any  other  diocese.  Secondly,  it 
was  intimated  that  the  laws  rendered  the  tenure  in  trust  of  church 
property  by  the  ordinary,  uncertain,  if  not  insecure.  Besides,  if  it 
could  be  avoided,  without  injury  to  religion  and  the  ecclesiastical 
property,  we  should  be  glad  to  see  the  bishop  freed  from  the  solici¬ 
tude  inseparable  from  its  guardianship.  These  considerations, 
which  might  be  much  enlarged,  have  induced  us  to  hope  that  the 
present  system  might  be  so  modified  as  to  secure  some  benefit,  and 
exclude  many  of  the  evils  which  have  resulted  from  the  irresponsible 
exercise  of  its  powers.  It  is  with  the  view  to  make  the  experiment, 
that  the  statutes  enacted  at  our  late  Synod,  have  been  adopted  as 
the  Ecclesiastical  Law  of  the  diocese.  We  have  made  it  the  duty 
of  the  pastors  to  procure,  in  every  instance,  a  register  of  the  church 
property.  In  this,  they  are  directed  to  note  down,  in  the  first  place, 
whatever  appertains  to  the  history  of  the  church — the  date  of  the 
origin — its  location — the  Saint  under  whose  patronage  it  is  dedi¬ 
cated — its  style  of  architecture,  and  whatever  else  would  be  in¬ 
teresting  in  its  general  history  and  character.  Besides  this,  they 
are  required  to  preserve  an  inventory  of  all  its  movable  property — ■ 
such  as  chalices,  vestments,  and  what  may  be  termed  the  sacred 
furniture  of  the  church ;  distinguishing  in  said  inventory  such 
things  as  belong  to  themselves,  if  any,  from  what  belongs  to  the 
congregation.  They  shall,  furthermore,  be  required  at  each  annual 
visitation  of  the  bishop,  to  exhibit  a  synopsis  of  the  financial  con¬ 
dition  of  the  church — embracing  a  statement  of  its  revenue — from 
what  source  derived — how  expended,  etc. ;  and  for  this  purpose 
they  are  to  have  access  to  the  books  of  the  treasurer,  and  the  min 


ON  CHURCH  PROPERTY,  ETC. 


323 


utes  of  all  official  proceedings  by  the  Board  of  Trustees,  as  often 
as  they  shall  judge  necessary. 

Should  it  happen  that  any  Board  of  Trustees,  or  other  lay  j^ersons, 
managing  the  temporal  affairs  of  any  church  or  congregation,  should 
refuse  to  let  them  see  the  treasurer’s  books,  and  the  minutes  of 
official  proceedings,  they  are  required  to  give  us  immediate  notice 
of  such  refusal. 

We  shall  then  adopt  such  measures  as  the  circumstances  of  each 
case  may  require ;  but  in  no  case  shall  we  tolerate  the  presence  of  a 
clergyman  in  any  church  or  congregation  in  Avhicli  such  refusal  shall 
be  persevered  in.  We  look  to  this  measure  as  the  means,  if  not 
of  accomplishing  much  good,  at  least  of  preventing  much  evil.  Our 
object  is  to  fulhil  the  duties  of  our  station,  not  only  by  preserving, 
as  far  as  in  us  lies,  the  purity  of  faith  and  morals  over  which  we  are 
appointed  to  watch,  but  also  of  preserving  whatever  the  piety  of  the 
faithful  has  consecrated  to  the  service  of  Almighty  God,  and  for  the 
support  of  religion.  And  we  should  be  happy  if  it  were  found 
that  in  the  laws  no  substantial  obstacle  exists  to  the  investment  of 
the  kind  of  property  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  Provincial 
Council.  Provisions  have  already  been  made,  wherever  it  has  been 
so  invested,  to  secure  it  against  the  dangers  of  alienation  by  the 
demise  of  the  bishop  or  other  accidents  which  are  jDOSsible.  Cer¬ 
tainly,  the  responsibility  would  be  much  greater  on  him  than  it 
would  be  on  lay  trustees.  First,  because  he  undestands  better  than 
they  can  be  expected  to  do,  the  account  which  is  to  be  rendered  to 
God  for  its  just  administration.  Secondly,  because  he  has  no  re¬ 
lease  from  the  awful  burthen  with  which  it  is  connected,  from  the 
time  of  his  appointment  until  his  death.  Thirdly,  because  were  he 
to  mismanage,  or  suffer  the  dilapidation  of  it,  the  congregations 
themselves  and  their  clergy  would  be  cognizant  of  the  fact. 
Fourthly,  because  in  that  event,  he  would  be  held  immediately  respon¬ 
sible  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  Church,  for  a  neglect  and 
violation  of  his  duty.  Whereas,  with  trustees,  the  ecclesiastical 
laws  and  the  civil  laws  are  alike  feeble  in  fixing  or  determining  the 
responsibility  of  mismanaging  or  wasting  ecclesiastical  property. 
The  only  penalty  that  we  have  hitherto  known,  is  to  decline  re-elect¬ 
ing  those  who  may  have  so  mismanaged. 

These  are  the  principal  statutes  to  which,  for  the  information  of 
the  faithful,  we  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  refer  in  oiir  Pastoral 
Letter.  Other  enactments,  intended  for  their  good,  but  having 
reference  more  directly  to  the  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
and  to  the  clergy  themselves,  we  need  not  dwell  upon.  We  have 
been  cheered  and  consoled  by  the  great  spirit  of  zeal,  harmony  and 
devotion  to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  which  have  marked  the 
deliberations  of  the  Synod,  on  all  these  subjects ;  and  we  have  no 
doubt  that  the  co-operation  among  the  faithful,  to  see  them  carried 
out  and  sustained,  will  correspond  with  that  of  the  clergy.  We 


326 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  PASTORAL 


trust  and  believe  that  the  bolding  of  this,  the  first  Synod  in  the 
Diocese  of  JSTew  York,  is  an  auspicious  epoch  in  the  history  of  our 
religion.  In  other  countries,  where  religion  has  been  persecuted  by 
the  government,  our  brethren  have  but  to  remove  the  rubbish  of 
the  old  temjile,  and  reconstruct  it  on  its  own  foundations,  which  can 
still  be  traced.  With  us  the  case  is  different.  The  materials  abound 
on  every  side,  but  as  yet  they  have  not  been  reduced  to  that  order 
which  constitutes  beauty  in  the  celestial  edifice ;  and  for  this 
we  have  but  to  consult  the  annals  of  religion  to  discover  the  plan 
which  we  should  imitate  and  follow.  We  may  be  assured  that  if 
we  would  have  the  Church  of  God  to  spread  among  us — if  we 
would  have  our  venerated  clergy  enshrined  in  the  holiness  of  their 
office  and  in  the  afltection  of  their  flocks — if  we  would  have  piety 
and  charity  and  peace  to  flourish  among  us — it  is  not  by  imitating 
the  loftiest  eftbrts  of  human  wisdom  displayed  in  the  ecclesiastical 
policy  of  modern  sects,  but  by  endeavoring  to  tread  as  nearly  as 
possible  in  the  paths  trodden  by  our  ancestors  in  faith,  according  to 
the  prescriptions  of  that  Church  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  was  prom¬ 
ised  for  its  guidance,  and  from  which  the  veracity  of  that  promise 
is  a  pledge  that  it  will  never  depart. 

These  are  the  wise  counsels  which  already  have  begun  to  manifest 
their  blessed  fruits  among  us.  They  have  already  begun  to  extend 
among  the  faithful,  and  we  know  that  their  reverence  for  the 
authority  of  their  religion  is  such,  that  they  will  rarely  offend 
against  it,  when  they  know  what  it  is.  It  is  for  this  reason,  prin¬ 
cipally,  that  we  have  dwelt  so  much  at  large  upon  the  several  topics 
referred  to  in  this  Lettei’,  desirous  as  we  were  to  blend  explanation, 
as  far  as  might  be,  with  the  promulgation  of  the  laws  which  they 
will  be  so  prompt  to  follow  and  obey.  If  we  have  not  succeeded  as 
well  as  may  be  required  in  some  instances,  we  entreat  you,  vener¬ 
able  brethren  of  the  clergy,  to  supply  our  deficiencies  by  your  in¬ 
structions  and  explanations  of  these  laws,  in  all  patience  and 
charity.  They  do  not  come  into  operation  until  the  period  of  three 
months  from  their  promulgation  in  our  Diocese  Synod ;  and,  of 
course,  cannot  be  enforced  until  their  existence  shall  have  been 
made  sufficiently  known,  for  which  purpose  three  months  were  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  sufficient. 

In  conclusion,  we  have  to  exhort  you  all  to  be  zealous  and  faith¬ 
ful  to  the  duties  of  your  Christian  calling ;  to  study  to  adorn  youi 
profession  by  the  virtues  of  your  lives ;  by  temperance,  truth,  in¬ 
tegrity,  and  all  those  qualities  which  are  required  in  the  cliaracter 
of  good  citizens.  But,  remembering  that  you  are  not  created  foi 
this  alone,  we  exhort  you  again,  beloved  children  of  the  laity,  with 
greater  earnestness  to  attencl  to  and  fulfill  your  Christian  duties,  by 
observing  the  lessons  of  religion,  by  frequenting  the  holy  sacra 
ments,  by  imparting  salutary  instruction  to  your  children,  and  those 
under  yoEr  care,  and  by  confirming  the  same  with  the  authority  of 
your  example. 


APOLOGY  FOR  HIS  PASTORAL. 


327 


And,  now,  the  peace  of  God,  which  snrpasseth  all  understanding, 
keep  your  hearts  and.  minds  in  Christ  Jesus,  AME]sr. 

Given  at  the  Episcopal  Residence,  New  York,  this  8th  day  of 
September,  in  the  Year  of  our  Lord,  1842,  and  in  the  fifth  of  our 
Episcopacy. 

>J<  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop  of  Basileopolis, 
Coadjutor  to  the  Bishop,  and  Administrator 
of  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 

William  Starrs,  Secretary. 


Bishop  Hughes’  Apology  for  his  Pastoral  Letter, 

IN  REPLY  TO  THE  STRICTURES  OF  FOUR  EDITORS  OF 
POLITICAL  NEWSPAPERS; 

Tlie  first,  David  Hale,  Esq.,  who  is  a  Congregationalist  in  religion  ;  the  second, 
W.  L  Stone,  Esq.,  who  is  some  kind  of  a  Presbyterian;  the  third,  M.  M.  Noah, 
Esq.,  who  is  a  Jew ;  and  the  fourth,  the  editor  (whose  name  I  do  not  know)  of  a 
little  paper  called  the  “  Aurora.’" 

Gentlemein-, — In  proposing  to  reply  briefly  to  your  strictures  on 
my  Pastoral  Letter,  I  have  deemed  it  but  right  to  place  your  several 
religious  professions  in  connection  with  your  names,  not  through 
disrespect,  but  in  order  that  the  reader  may  judge  of  your  compe¬ 
tency  to  decide  a  matter  of  ecclesiastical  polity  between  a  Catholic 
Bishop  and  his  flock.  The  manifest  concord  of  opinion  in  the  cen¬ 
sures  which  you  are  pleased  to  bestow  on  me,  could  hardly  unite 
you  on  any  other  topic,  except  an  assault  upon  the  Catholic  religion 
and  its  ministers.  On  this  point  Jew  and  Gentile,  Greek  and  Bar¬ 
barian,  are  agreed.  It  is,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  “the  sect 
everywhere  spoken  against.” 

It  is  unquestionably  your  right,  as  conductors  of  public  journals, 
to  discuss  public  matters ;  but  how  far  you  are  warranted  in  the 
propriety  of  bringing  a  religious  question,  of  a  denomination  to  which 
none  of  you  belong,  into  the  columns  of  secular  and  political  journals, 
is  a  question  on  which  I  leave  others  to  decide.  To  me  it  seems  that 
it  is  going  beyond  your  province,  and  especially  when  we  recollect 
the  horror  which  you  affected  at  an  imaginary  interference  with  po¬ 
litical  matters  by  the  clergy,  on  a  late  occasion.  If  you  should  extend 
to  every  denomination,  in  the  regulation  of  its  ecclesiastical  concerns, 
the  same  degree  of  solicitude  that  you  have  to  ours,  then  your  papers 
will  abound  with  an  incongruous  mixture  of  what  you  so  much  depre¬ 
cate,  the  blending  of  religion  and  politics — Church  and  State.  I  do 
not  complam  of  the  epithets  which  you  have  applied  to  the  document 
under  consideration,  or  to  its  author.  It  was  my  duty  to  address 
the  flock  committed  to  my  charge,  in  the  plain,  simple  and  direct 


328 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


language  best  calculated  to  express  the  meaning  which  I  intended  to 
convey.  In  all  this,  I  have  but  made  known  to  them  the  laws  and 
rules  of  their  religion,  and  if  I  had  proceeded  to  ordain  anything  not 
authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  Church,  they  themselves  have  sufficient 
discernment  to  perceive  and  remonstrate  against  such  enactment. 
Whether  or  not  my  language,  in  doing  this,  is  to  be  denounced  as 
“  impudent,”  “  bold,”  “  bigoted,”  etc.,  will  depend  very  much  on 
whether  that  religious  liberty  which  is  guaranteed  by  our  Constitu¬ 
tion,  is  a  thing  to  be  enjoyed  or  not. 

As  the  question  stands  in  the  columns  of  your  respective  papers, 
I  cannot  but  consider  myself  as  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  public  opin¬ 
ion,  having  you  for  my  accusers ;  and  the  object  of  this  communica¬ 
tion  is  to  prove,  if  I  can,  that  you  are  false  witnesses,  bad  reasoners, 
and  unjust  judges  in  the  premises.  It  seems  to  me  that  you  have 
made  this  easily  proved.  The  first  charge  which  is  made  against 
me,  is,  for  a  pretended  encroachment  on  the  rights  and  freedom  of 
the  Catholic  body.  Before  I  show  how  unjust  this  charge  is,  I  must 
premise  a  few  observations,  which  are  essential  to  a  proper  under¬ 
standing  of  the  subject. 

First. — Eveiy  religious  denomination  in  this  country,  being  obe¬ 
dient  to  the  laws  thereof,  has  a  right  to  regulate,  according  to  its 
own  rules,  the  questions  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  appertaining  to 
its  government.  Deny  this  right,  and  you  destroy  religious  liberty. 
In  the  exercise  of  this  right,  there  is  amongst  us  one  denomination 
that  refuses  to  recognize  our  government,  or  to  exercise  under  it, 
the  prerogatives  of  citizens,  because,  according  to  their  religious  be¬ 
lief,  the  government  is  opposed  to  the  ordinances  of  God.  They  ans, 
however,  so  far  as  I  know,  good  citizens — that  is,  obedient  to  the 
laws,  discharging  their  social  duties  as  well  as  others  who  hold  not 
these  opinions.  So  also  with  every  new  or  ancient  sect  or  society, 
each  has  its  own  rules,  without  which  it  could  not  subsist. 

Secondly.. — The  Pastoral  Letter  is  but  one  of  the  forms  of  religious 
government  embraced,  and  adhered  to,  by  the  denomination  to  whom 
it  w^as  addressed.  It  specifies  and  requires  conformity  to  rules  which 
would  be  very  absurd  if  addressed  to  Congregationalists,  Presbyte¬ 
rians,  Jews,  or  Infidels;  but  it  is  addressed  to  Catholics.,  that  is  to 
say,  to  those  who  recognize  in  it  the  rules  of  the  Society  to  which 
they  belong. 

Thirdly. — But,  does  conformity  to  its  requirements  imply  that 
abjection  of  spirit — that  absence  of  religious  liberty,  which  your 
strictures  describe  ?  I  answer,  no.  And  why  does  it  not  ?  Because, 
all  similar  obligations  are  of  a  moral  character.  The  individuals  to 
whom  they  are  addressed  have  the  power  of  conforming  or  of  resist¬ 
ing,  as,  in  the  exercise  of  their  moral  liberty,  they  may  prefer.  If 
they  choose  and  desire  to  be  Catholics  and  to  be  in  full  and  perfect 
membership  with  their  communion,  they  will  conform  to  the  rules, 
explicitly  or  implicitly  recognized,  by  aU  who  profess  the  Catholic 
name.  If,  on  tlie  contrary,  they  prefer  to  forsake  that  communion, 
rather  than  submit  to  their  rules,  their  power  to  do  so  is  undisputed ; 


APOLOGY  FOR  HIS  PASTORAL. 


329 


and  thougli  the  exercise  of  that  power  be  at  the  risk  of  their  salva¬ 
tion — still  there  is  but  little  doubt  that  its  exercise  would  tend  to  an 
improvement  of  their  worldly  circumstances,  considering  the  igno¬ 
rance  and  prejudices  of  a  vast  portion  of  the  public  in  reference  to 
the  communion  which  they  would  have  forsaken.  Thus,  therefore, 
their  adhering  to  that  communion,  under  these  circumstances,  is  as 
real  an  exercise  of  their  religious  freedom  as  if  they  forsook  it,  and 
attached  themselves  to  the  undefined  worship  and  usages  of  the 
Broadway  Tabernacle.  In  my  Pastoral  Letter  I  found  it  my  duty 
to  promulgate  certain  regulations  with  regard  to  the  tenure  and 
administration  of  church  property.  You,  gentlemen,  have  accused 
me,  one  and  all,  of  having  dispossessed  or  intending  to  dispossess  the 
laity  of  this  property,  and  of  passing  it  into  the  hands  of  the  clergy. 
In  this  accusation  I  charge  you  with  being  false  witnesses.  I  have 
not,  and  if  you  have  read  my  Pastoral  Letter,  you  must  have  seen, 
that  I  have  not  proposed  any  such  thing.  I  have  simply  endeavored 
to  correct  certain  abuses  connected  with  its  administration — but  as 
to  having  claimed  to  alter  it,  there  is  no  evidence  found  in  the  docu¬ 
ment  to  which  you  refer.  How  then,  gentlemen,  could  you  in  so 
serious  a  matter  bear  false  witness  against  your  neighbor  ? 

With  the  Catholics  it  is  a  principle  of  morals,  that  a  debt  justly 
contracted  must  be  paid,  and  that  no  lapse  of  time,  no  civil  exemp¬ 
tion,  nothing  but  inability,  can  release  the  debtor  from  the  obliga¬ 
tion  of  such  payment.  How,  the  laws  of  a  civil  character  for  the 
government  of  a  church,  authorize  trustees  to  contract  debts;  and  as 
trustees  are  but  representatives  of  those  who  elect  them,  that  moral 
obligation  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  devolves  on  their  constitu¬ 
ents,  that  is  to  say,  the  Catholic  body  at  large.  It  has  come  within 
my  knowledge,  as  an  instance  for  illustration,  that  a  debt  thus  con¬ 
tracted  of  less  than  seventy  dollars,  by  the  neglect  or  mismanage¬ 
ment  of  trustees  and  the  accumulation  of  expenses  by  a  legal  process, 
for  its  recovery,  has  amounted,  in  less  than  one  year,  to  the  increased 
sum  of  one  hundred  and  ninety  dollars.  How  this  is  an  instance  of 
the  abuse  which  the  Pastoral  Letter  is  intended  to  remove,  and  cer¬ 
tainly  I  did  not  expect  from  gentlemen  wielding  the  influence  of  the 
public  press,  so  harsh  a  reprimand  for  a  regulation'  calculated  and 
intended  to  promote  the  great  ends  of  moral  honesty  and  common 
justice !  As  for  your  asserting  that  I  attempt  to  take  such  prop¬ 
erty  from  trustees,  it  is,  as  I  have  before  said,  gratuitous,  and  par¬ 
don  me  for  adding,  utterly  false. 

The  next  point  on  which  I  am  arraigned  by  you  all,  is  the  regula¬ 
tion  respecting  what  is  termed  in  the  document  “  mixed  marriages.” 
On  this  subject  you  have  indulged  a  degree  of  sentimentality  which 
would  be  quite  edifying,  were  it  not  that  the  2“>rinciples  and  prac¬ 
tices  of  the  Presbyterian  religion  and  of  the  Jewish  religion  equally 
forbid  the  members  of  either  to  marry  with  Catholics.  Yet  on  this 
point,  I  contend  that  there  is  no  violation,  on  either  side,  of  religious 
or  civil  liberty.  It  is  a  question  which  it  will  be  in  the  power  of 
each  one  to  decide  for  himself,  whether  he  shall  prefer  the  rules  of 


330 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


the  religion  which  he  professes,  or  the  indulgence  of  his  own  per¬ 
sonal  feeling.  He  is  certainly  free  to  decline  matrimonial  alliances 
which  are  not  approved  by  his  church ;  or  he  is  free  to  throw  his 
church  overboard,  and  enter  on  those  alliances  as  he  will. 

The  next  subject  of  your  complaint  is  that  I  have  denounced  “  Odd 
Fellows,”  “Free  Masons,”  etc.  Here  again,  gentlemen,  you  must 
permit  me  to  say,  in  my  defence,  that  you  are  false  witnesses.  The 
document  which  you  atfect  to  review  has  not  a  syllable  against  Odd 
Fellows  or  Free  Masons.  I  am  unconscious  of  ever  having  received 
any  injury  from  the  members  of  either  of  these  societies,  and  God 
forbid  that  I  should  entertain  the  slightest  uncharitableness  or  ill 
will  towards  them. 

But,  gentlemen,  it  is  my  duty  as  an  official  interpreter  of  Christian 
morals,  in  the  instruction  of  my  owk  flock,  to  define  the  conditions 
which  according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  make  it  lawful  and  innocent 
to  appeal  to  God  in  the  solemnity  of  an  oath.  Experience  has  taught 
me  that  some,  at  least,  of  my  flock,  were  ignorant  or  misled  in  ref¬ 
erence  to  this  subject.  Three  or  four  years  ago,  and  since,  I  had 
occasion  to  believe  that  many  poor  Catholics,  especially  when  assem¬ 
bled  in  large  bodies  on  public  Works,  are  perverted  and  marshaled, 
into  combinations,  bound  together  by  the  solemnity  of  oaths  admin¬ 
istered  to  them  by  some  of  their  more  depraved  or  more  designing 
countrymen. 

If  there  had  been  but  one  such  society,  although  still  unlawful, 
yet  the  consequences  to  the  community  and  to  its  own  dupes  could 
not  have  been  so  fatal ;  but  there  were  at  least  two, — and  I  have 
had  much  reason  to  believe  that  the  contagions  of  these  two  led  to 
many  of  those  riots  and  disturbances  on  public  Avorks,  which  are 
spoken  of  in  the  newspapers  as  battles  betAveen  “  Corkonians  and 
Connaught  men — far-ups  and  far-doAvns.”  Both  of  these  societies 
had  most  benevolent  purposes,  and  beautiful  features  displayed  in 
the  programme  of  their  Constitution. 

More  than  a  year  ago,  certain  prominent  officers  of  both,  promised 
me  to  abolish  every  kind  of  oath  or  solemn  appeal  to  God  as  the  tie 
of  membership  binding  their  respective  fraternities  together.  This, 
I  have  reason  to  think,  they  have  obserA^ed  since  then  most  relig¬ 
iously.  But  I  had  occasion  to  discover  further,  that  in  many  remote 
parts  of  the  diocese  and  country,  others  who  had  been  initiated  pre- 
A'iously,  into  the  societies,  still  retained  their  oath,  and  deluded  the 
uuAvary  into  joining  those  societies,  by  asserting  that  they  had  my 
approbation.  Noav,  this  was  true,  so  far  as  the  benevolent  object  of 
the  society  was  concerned  ;  but  utterly  false  so  far  as  those  objects 
Avere  to  be  secured  by  an  appeal,  or  an  adjuration  to  the  living  God. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  became  necessary  for  me  through  the 
medium  of  a  Pastoral  Letter  to  undeceive  them.,  and  to  caution  others 
upon  this  subject.  Certainly  the  society  of  Free  Masons,  or  the 
society  of  Odd  FelloAV’s,  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  that  letter, 
nor  did  they  occur  to  me  in  its  composition.  Yet  the  principles  Laid 
doAvu  m  the  Pastoral,  A\ffiich  are  principles  of  Christian  morals,  as 


APOLOGY  FOR  HIS  PASTORAL. 


331 


understood  in  the  Catholic  Church,  will  apply  to  every  society  coming 
under  the  description  there  given. 

Having  thus  explained  the  circumstances  under  which  it  became 
my  duty  to  allude  to  “Secret  Societies,”  and  having  specified  the 
kind  of  societies  which  had  particularly  created  that  necessity,  I  did 
not  expect  that  you,  gentlemen,  who  ought  to  be  guardians  of  pub¬ 
lic  order,  would  have  rebuked  me  in  such  unmeasured  terms  for 
having  thus  endeavored  to  remove  the  source  from  which  those  dis¬ 
orders  have  sprung,  on  our  public  works  and  elsewhere. 

When  quarrels  have  taken  place,  and  the  public  authorities  have 
been  obliged  to  interpose — when  hatred  has  been  engendered,  and 
sometimes  blood  sued — the  whole  matter  is  for  you  but  an  occasion 
for  a  sportive  paragraph.  For  me  it  is  one  of  horror  and  affliction ; 
and  knowing  the  source  from  which,  in  too  many  instances,  those 
evils  have  arisen,  I  should  have  taken  to  myself  rather,  credit  for 
rendering  a  benefit  to  society,  and  especially  to  the  unhappy  men 
themselves,  by  endeavoring  to  remove'  the  cause. 

So  far  I  have  noticed  those  charges  in  which  you  all  agree.  Kow 
I  shall  briefly  review  the  tone  and  spirit  of  the  several  articles  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  individuality  of  their  respective  authors. 

The  first  who  leads  off  in  the  charge  is  Mr.  Hale  of  the  Journal  of 
Commerce. 

This  gentleman  is  so  notorious  for  his  bitterness  against  Catholics 
and  Catholicity,  that  to  their  minds  his  condemnation  of  anything 
connected  with  their  religion,  is  a  very  strong  presumption  in  its 
favor.  He  is  generally  reported  a  religious  man — some  believe  him 
to  be  a  saint,  in  his  own  way — one  thing,  however,  strikes  me  from 
an  occasional  }>erusal  of  his  paper,  which  is,  that  he  is  not  a  believer 
in  the  merit  of  good  works,  and  that  his  salvation  runs  but  little 
jeopardy  from  his  practice  in  that  way.  I  do  not  consider  him  a 
well-informed  Christian.  The  sign  of  the  Cross,  which  it  is  usual 
for  Catholic  bishops,  especially  in  the  Western  Church,  to  prefix  to 
their  signature,  occurs  to  his  mind  under  the  idea  of  a  “  dagger.” 
Is  this  wit,  or  is  it  ignorance  ?  If  it  be  wit,  if  seems  to  me  that  he 
would  have  done  better  to  have  chosen  another  object,  and  left  this 
for  the  jest  of  IMr.  Noah.  To  the  Christian  the  Cross  is  an  object 
of  reverence.  It  is  an  emblem,  blended  with  all  that  is  consoling  in 
human  life — with  all  that  is  commemorative  of  the  Saviour’s  suffer¬ 
ings — with  all  that  is  humane  in  the  elements  of  modern  civilization, 
and  yet  this  symbol  carries  to  the  brain  of  Mr.  Hale  only  the  idea 
of  a  “  dagger.”  It  has  been  the  ornament  of  all  that  is  great  and 
glorious,  in  the  annals  of  Christendom.  It  is  the  sign  which  marks 
the  spot  where  William  Tell  freed  his  country.  It  is  the  seal  which 
was  impressed  on  the  Magxa  Ciiarta  of  British  Liberty,  from  which 
our  own  is  derived ;  and  yet  it  conveys  to  the  mind  of  a  man  who 
reads  his  Bible  and  lays  claim  to  no  ordinary  share  of  sanctity,  the 
idea  and  associations  of  a  dagger.  It  is  not  for  me  to  explain  why 
this  should  be  so ;  and  in  itself  it  is  a  phenomenon  almost  as  unac¬ 
countable  as  that  the  female  figure  seen  in  our  courts,  holding  scales 


332 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


equally  poised,  Avhicli  symbolizes  a  reign  of  just  and  equal  laws,  and 
on  which  men  usually  look  Avith  pleasure,  should,  in  some  instances 
suggest  to  the  beholder  only  the  idea  of  imprisonment  or  something 
worse. 

Mr.  Hale  after  haAdng  first  borne  false  witness  against  his  neighbor, 
builds  some  paragraphs  of  ill-reasoned  commentary  on  the  basis  of 
his  own  testimony.  He  says :  “  With  no  little  regard  for  some  of 
the  gentlemen  Ave  knoAV  (meaning  Catholics)  it  seems  to  us  they 
have  proved  beyond  all  controversy  that  liberty  cannot  be  sustained 
in  connection  Avitli  the  divine  right  of  priests.  This  superstition 
overaAves  the  risings  of  liberty,  and  holds  the  man  in  bondage.  Lib< 
erty  never  grew  in  such  a  soil  smothered  in  such  rank  Aveeds.”  Noav 
I  have  to  observe  first  that  all  priests  Avho  are  appointed  of  Christ, 
.are  by  divine  right ;  and  when  they  are  loss  than  this,  they  are  not 
priests  at  all !  Secondly,  that  Mr.  Hale’s  principle  is,  that  no  man 
can  exercise  the  rights  of  freedom  unless  he  trample  upon  the  relig¬ 
ious  or  social  obligations  which  he  has  been  pleased  to  assume. 
Thus,  to  be  a  fi’eeman,  the  Presbyterian  must  tramjile  on  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession  of  Faith  ;  the  Episco]Aalians  on  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles;  the  Catholic  on  the  Council  of  Trent;  the  Jcav  on  the  law 
of  Moses;  and  even  the  Odd  FelloAVS  and  Free  Masons  on  the  rule 
which  bind  them  together ! 

I,  on  the  contrary,  contend  that  such  a  principle  is  inconsistent  Avith 
the  existence  of  every  social,  or  religious  society.  But  Mr.  Hale  does 
not  depend  on  his  reasoning  alone,  such  as  it  is.  He  quotes  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  tells  us  that  Peter  says,  “  not  to  the  clergy,  but  to  the 
Avhole  people,  ye  are  a  chosen  genei’ation,  a  Royal  Priesthood,” 
and  from  this  he  infers  that  everybody  is  a  priest  by  divine  right. 
Noav,  this  text  Avould  apply  in  the  Catholic  Church  Avhere  there  is  a 
sacrifice,  which  a  priesthood  necessarily  supposes,  and  Avhere  the 
priest  is  but  the  official  minister  to  discharge  the  sacred  functions 
for,  and  Avith  the  people.  To  such  a  people,  Avithout  distinction  of 
clergy  from  laity,  we  can  understand  the  application  of  a  “  social 
priesthood.”  But  if  Mr.  Hale  Avill  allow  the  question  to  be  decided 
by  the  Scriptures,  he  Avill  find  a  text,  much  more  safe  and  much  less 
equivocal  in  its  meaning,  in  Avhich  the  inspired  Apostle  directs  the 
faithful  to  be  “  obedient  and  subject  to  their  prelates” — a  text,  by 
the  Avay,  Avhich  can  have  no  possible  meaning  at  the  BroadAvay  Tab¬ 
ernacle. 

The  next  accuser,  in  the  order  of  time,  is  Wm.  L.  Stone,  Esq. 
My  Avish  is  to  speak  of  this  gentleman  Avith  respect.  I  cannot  but 
regard  him  as  a  man  Avhom  nature  intended  to  be  benevolent.  He 
once  entitled  himself  to  the  respect  of  all  lovers  of  truth,  of  AAdiat- 
ever  denomination,  by  his  triumphant  exposure  of  the  disgusting 
libel  Avhich  appeared  under  the  title  of  “  Maria  Monk.”  His  merit 
in  this  Avas  the  greater  because  his  virtue  Avas  reflected  in  the  refu¬ 
tation  and  confusion  of  some  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  his 
OAvn  church.  He  alone  had  the  discernment  to  perceiA’e  that  his 
religion  could  derive  no  honor  from  the  employment  of  falsehood. 


APOLOGY  FOR  HIS  PASTORAL. 


333 


His  course,  however,  is  no  longer  the  same  that  it  then  was ;  and  if 
a  stranger  might  presume  to  speculate  on  the  catise  of  this  change, 
circumstances  would  go  far  to  suggest  that  he  has  been  made  to  feel 
deeply  the  power  of  the  enmity  which  he  had  provoked,  and  which 
nothing  but  a  show  of  hostility  towards  the  Catholics,  such  as  we 
have  witnessed  in  his  writings  lately,  could  appease.  Poor  man ! 

In  his  comments  on  the  Pastoral  Letter,  he  reasons  in  the  same 
track  as  his  brother  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce.  He  too  accuses  me 
of  having  attacked  the  “Odd  Fellows”  Society,  and  volunteers  a 
defence  in  refutation  of  his  own  accusation,  if  any,  certainly  not 
mine.  He  seems  even  to  be  deeply  interested  in  the  Avelfare  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  speaks  with  a  benevolent  appearance  of  appre¬ 
hension  and  regret,  in  reference  to  the  consequences  of  the  Pastoral 
Letter.  Now  if  he  be  a  consistent  man,  he  ought  to  rejoice  of  the 
consequences,  knowing  as  he  does,  that  such  Catholics  as  Avill  not 
abide  by  the  rule  '^f  their  religion,  have  the  power  to  join  the  Prot¬ 
estant  religion.  This  right^of  passing  from  one  denomination  to 
another,  is  restricted  happily  in  this  country,  only  by  the  sense  of 
responsibility  connected  with  the  judgment  of  the  soul  in  the  life  to 
come. 

We  have  next  a  dissertation  on  the  subject  of  this  Catholic  Pas¬ 
toral  from  Mr.  Noah,  who  is  a  Jew,  and  belongs  to  a  religion  for 
the  members  of  Avhich  I  entertain  a  melancholy  reverence,  mingled 
with  other  feelings  which,  I  trust,  are  no  dishonor  to  the  human 
heart !  but  that  he  should  have  thought  himself  qualified  to  disapprove 
my  letter  in  reference  to  Christian  “  baptism”  is  somewhat  curious. 

I  must,  however,  do  him  the  justice  to  say,  that  he  does  not  treat 
of  the  Sacrament  alone,  but  considers  it  in  connection  with  the  “  per¬ 
quisite,”  an  association  of  ideas  in  his  mind  which  is,  perhaps,  under 
all  circumstances,  not  unnatural.  He  deals  in  the  same  denuncia¬ 
tions  as  his  colleagues  of  the  Journal  and  Commercial  Advertiser.  He 
too  defends  the  “  Odd  Fellows,”  whom,  as  I  have  already  remarked, 
I  had  not  assailed  in  any  shape  or  form.  All  of  them  have  applied 
epithets  which  the  occasion  certainly  did  not  warrant.  As  a  minis¬ 
ter  of  religion,  I  gave  out  such  directions,  addressed  not  to  Presby¬ 
terians,  nor  JeAvs,  nor  Odd  FelloAvs,  but  to  the  members  of  my  oaaui 
fiock,  as  the  rules  of  their  religion  required,  a  right  which  is  claimed 
by  every  sect  and  every  individual  minister  in  the  land  ;  and  for  this 
I  am  charged  with  arrogance,  impudence,  bigotry,  and  boldness,  by 
these  pretended  advocates  of  ci\dl  and  religious  liberty. 

We  noAV  come  to  the  “  Aurora,”  of  Avhich,  hoAvever,  I  need  say 
nothing,  as  it  only  repeats  what  the  others  had  said  before,  and  as  I 
am  told  the  paper  is  of  no  repute. 

With  this  defence  of  my  Pastoral  Letter,  I  submit  the  question  to 
the  impartial  judgment  of  that  public  before  Avhich  I  have  been  ai*- 
raigned.  The  denunciations  which  have  been  uttered  against  me 
strike  at  the  root  of  all  religious  and  social  organization.  Everv 
society  has  the  right  to  frame  and  iqJiold  the  rules  by  Avhich  it  fs 
held  together,  and  the  members  Avho  violate  these  rules,  by  every 


334 


ARCHBISHOP  HtTGHEs’ 


prijiciple  of  justice  and  the  usages  of  mankind,  forfeit  thereby  all 
claim  to  the  benefits  of  the  association. 

It  may  be  that  I  have  spoken  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  assailed 
me  so  unwarrantably,  as  1  conceive,  in  a  manner  that  indicates  dis¬ 
respect  or  ill  will.  I  certainly  enteitain  no  ill  will  towards  them,  or 
any  other  being  alive,  and  if  I  have  used  language  that  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  severe,  it  is  simply  with  a  view  to  convince  them,  if  possi¬ 
ble,  that  I  did  not  merit  the  treatment  which  I  have  experienced  at 
their  hands.  I  did  not  conceive  that  they  were  proper  persons 
to  decide  upon  questions  of  an  ecclesiastical  character,  except  in 
the  several  communions  to  which  they  belong.  Their  attempt  to 
jiersuade  the  fiock  committed  to  my  charge  that  I  have  any  other 
purpose  than  their  spiritual  and  temporal  welfare  is  perfectly  futile. 
Coming  from  any  source  it  would  not  be  believed  by  those  who 
know  me,  but  coming  from  persons  whose  hostility  to  the  interests 
of  the  Catholic  body  is  so  well  known,  it  would  but  increase  their 
confidence.  To  the  Catholics  themselves,  I  have  to  say  that  I  have 
no  intention  to  destroy  their  charters,  or  take  the  title  of  their 
churches  in  my  own  name,  unless  they  themselves  deem  it  advisable. 
And  with  regard  to  the  other  requirements  of  the  Pastoral  Letter, 
they  contain  nothing  but  what  has  been  enjoined  by  the  authority 
of  our  religion  before  they  or  I  came  into  existence.  It  will  be  for 
themselves  individually  to  determine  wdaether  they  shall  conform  or 
not ;  but  it  may  be  some  matter  of  surprise,  and  perhaps  of  regret, 
to  those  who  have  assailed  me,  to  know  that  the  Catholics  them¬ 
selves,  THE  BEST  JUDGES  OF  THEIR  OWK  RELIGIOUS  RIGHTS  AXD 
INTERESTS,  have  hailed'  the  appearance  of  the  Pastoral  Letter  and 
the  requirements  which  it  contains,  with  a  unanimity  of  approbation 
almost  unequalled  !  Those  gentlemeu  may  still  be  further  surprised 
to  learn  that  many  trustees  of  churches  have  tendered  their  trust 
into  my  hands,  and  that  I  have  declined  to  receive  it !  What  will 
Mr.  Hale  say  to  that '? 

There  is  one  portion  of  the  Pastoral  Letter  which  I  am  sorry  has 
not  been  understood  by  some  of  the  Catholics  themselves  as  I  in¬ 
tended  it.  This  is  a  portion  which  seems  to  reflect  on  the  trustees 
indiscriminately,  and  to  involve  them  all  in  a  censure  which  was 
directed  only  against  some  in  connection  with  the  whole  system 
itself,  as  at  present  organized.  Now  I  must  say  that  in  all  my. inter¬ 
course  with  the  trustees  of  New  York,  and  I  may  add  of  the  diocese 
generally,  I  have  found  them,  with  very  few  exceptions,  as  respect¬ 
ful  to  me  in  my  official  character,  as  zealous  for  the  good  of  their 
religion,  as  any  other  members  of  the  Church.  There  has  been  but 
one  instance  in  which  an  attempt  was  made,  inconsiderately  and  not 
maliciously,  I  am  persuaded,  to  array  the  power  of  the  trustee  sys¬ 
tem  against  the  authority  of  the  Church.  That  issue  was  met  .and 
decided  as  it  ought  to  be.  In  all  other  cases  the  trustees,  so  far  as 
deference  to  the  laws  of  their  Church  is  concerned,  have  always  acted 
as  good  and  sincere  Catholics.  How  then  could  they  suppose  me  to 
be  so  unjust  as  to  involve  them  in  their  personal  and  religious  charatv 


LETTER  TO  DAVID  HALE. 


S35 


ter,  in  censures  in  which  they  and  I  knew  equally  that  they  did  not 
merit.  They  have  done,  and  are  doing  generally,  all  that  good  Cath¬ 
olic  men  can  *lo,  in  connection  with  a  system  which  is  un  catholic, 
and  in  our  circumstances  about  as  bad  as  a  system  well  can  be.  But 
with  the  aid  of  our  own  means  and  judgment,  we  can  correct  its 
evils  without  any  help  from  Jews  and  Presbyterians. 

^  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop,  etc. 

November,  1842. 


Letter  of  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  to  David 

Hale,  Esq. 

Sir  : — From  the  matter  and  tone  of  your  letter  published  in  the 
Journal  of  Commerce  of  last  Saturday,  it  would  appear  as  if  you 
wished  to  engage  in  a  religious  controversy.  If  this  be  your  in¬ 
tention,  it  will  not  be  in  my  power  to  correspond  with  it.  My  time 
is  much,  and  I  hope  more  profitably,  engaged.  IMy  feelings  are 
averse  to  the  agitation  of  that  bitter  element  in  which  you  seem  to 
delight.  For  this,  and  for  other  reasons  which  I  shall  submit  in 
the  sequel,  I  must  beg  leave  respectfully  to  decline  religious  con¬ 
troversy. 

Neither  have  I  anything  to  do  with  the  opinions  which  you  set 
forth  as  your  opinions,  in  opposition  to  the  general  views  of  man¬ 
kind  upon  the  same  subjects.  Your  opinions  respecting  Catholics 
and  their  religion,  you  are  at  perfect  liberty  to  express  where  and 
in  what  manner  you  may  think  proper.  I  cannot  tell  how  much  or 
how  little  they  are  appreciated  by  the  public  on  general  topics ;  but 
as  regards  religions  matters,  I  believe  they  are  held  by  even  your 
Protestant  brethren  as  something  below  par.  Of  course,  therefore, 
it  was  not  against  your  opinions  that  I  jfelt  it  my  duty  to  enter  into 
the  defence  of  my  Pastoral  Letter.  The  question  between  us  is  one 
of  fact,  and  not  of  opinion.  You  have  charged  me  with  having 
“attacked  the  civil  institutions  of  the  country”  in  my  Pastoral 
Letter,  and  I,  unconscious,  of  any  such  attack,  have  denied  the 
charge — and  arraign  you  as  a  false  accuser.  I  look  upoh  your  letter 
as  being  implicitly  an  acknowledgment  of  my  charge  against  you. 
If  it  was  hot,  it  was  easy  for  you  to  have  selected  such  portion  or 
portions  of  my  Pastoral  Letter  as  contained  an  “  attack  on  the  in¬ 
stitutions  of  the  country,”  such  as  you  have  described.  Until  you 
do  this,  it  will  be  impossible  for  you  to  escape  from  the  position 
of  a  man  who,  actuated  by  the  worst  feelings  of  the  human  heart, 
presents  serious  accusations  against  his  neighbor,  without  having 
facts  to  sustain  them. 

If  I  replied  to  your  strictures  on  my  Pastoral,  it  was  not  precisely 
because  I  apprehended  from  them  any  injury  to  the  religion  which 
you  are  so  impatient  to  assail.  That  religion  has  withstood  the 


336 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


successive  assaults  of  persecution,  pagan  philosophy,  barharism, 
heresy  and  infidelity  of  1800  years.  It  is  impregnable  as  a  for¬ 
tress  which  God  defends:  and  therefore  I  had  no  dread  that  it  could 
be  injured  by  the  Editor  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce.  But  when  I 
considered  the  time  and  the  circumstances  of  the  attack  by  your¬ 
self  and  your  colleagues,  representing  me  as  setting  forth  doctrines 
well  calculated  to  excite  the  passions  of  those  to  whom  your  stric¬ 
tures  were  addressed,  it  occurred  to  me  as  probable  that  your  in¬ 
tention  was  to  have  the  city  again  disgraced,  by  the  riots  of  a  mob, 
and  to  har  e  me  assailed  by  the  arguments  of  brick  bats  and  pavikg 
STOKES — for  I  hold  that  the  agents  who  fixed  such  a  blemish  on  the 
escutcheon  of  the  city  last  spring,  were  less  culpable  in  the  eyes  of 
right  reason  than  those  editors  who  had  influenced  their  passions  by 
sectarian  denunciations  against  Catholics,  of  whom  the  Editor  of  the 
Journal  of  Commerce  and  the  Editor  of  the  Commercial  Advertiser  were 
the  chiefs.  Thanks,  however,  to  the  sense  of  order  which  prevailed 
during  the  late  election,  but  no  thanks  to  you  or  your  colleagues — 
the  city  has  been  saved  from  a  repetition  of  the  disgrace  to  which 
I  have  referred.  The  windows  and  furniture  of  my  dwelling  are 
unbroken,  and  the  lives  of  the  inmates  of  my  house  have  not  been 
put  in  jeopardy.  So  far  my  letter,  in  refutation  of  your  strictures, 
may  have  been  serviceable  ;  for  the  very  tribunal  before  which  you 
arraigned  me,  all  prejudiced  as  a  portion  of  it  may  be,  against  the 
Catholic  religion,  is  too  just  to  condemn  and  punish  the  falsely 
accused,  although,  perchance,  too  indifterent  to  rebidce  the  false 
accuser.  We  shall  now  enter  briefly  into  the  matter  of  your  accu¬ 
sation. 

You  charged  me  with  having  attempted  to  invade  the  civil  rights 
of  the  Catholics,  in  the  matter  of  church  property.  I  call  upon  you 
for  the  proof  of  such  charge.  My  Pastoral  Letter  is  before  the 
public,  and  I  defy  you  to  find  in  it  grounds  for  any  such  malignant 
charge.  In  my  Apology  I  laid  down  principles  which  are  common 
to  Catholics,  and  to  all  other  religious  denominations,  for  the 
government  of  their  respective  religious  associations.  You  admit 
in  your  reply  that  those  principles  are  insisted  on  by  other  denomi¬ 
nations  and  by  all.  Why,  then,  did  you  single  out  the  Catholics,  as 
if  that  were  peculiar  to  them  alone  ?  So  far,  therefore,  the  piinciple 
of  my  Pastoral  Letter  is  sanctioned  by  the  ecclesiastical  usages  of 
all  l^rotestant  denominations.  Each  has  its  terms  of  coinmunion — 
each  has  its  laws  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  its  members 
and  its  affairs.  On  this  ground,  then,  you  give  up  the  attack — in 
reference  to  the  Catholics  alone,  and  contend  that  they  and  all  other 
denominations  are  wrong,  and  that  you,  Mr.  Hale,  are  alone  right. 
With  your  ojiinions,  as  I  have  said  before,  I  have  nothing  to  do. 
But  the  fact  that  the  principle  of  my  Pastoral  Letter  is  the  same 
principle  acted  upon  in  other  denominations,  and  without  which  no 
society  could  exist,  is  suflicient  vindication. 

The  next  point  of  your  assault  was  that  I  refused  Christian  burial 
to  those  who  do  not  abjure  “societies.”  This  is,  by  your  own  ac- 


LETTER  TO  DAVID  HALE. 


S31 


knowledgment,  a  false  accusation.  For  what  I  said  was  “secret 
societies,”  bound  together  by  an  oath  or  solemn  religious  ohligation, 
and  not  “societies”  in  general,  as  you  iniquitously  represent.  Now, 
secret  societies  you  yourself  condemn,  in  language  stronger  than  I 
used.  But  you  tell  us  in  your  letter  of  Saturday,  that  I  mistook 
your  meaning.  Your  words  are:  “What  I  condemned  was  the 
order  you  gave  that  when  dead,  the  members  of  such  societies 
should  be  refused  a  Christian  burial.”  This  order,  you  continued 
to  say,  “  seemed  to  me  more  in  accordance  with  the  maliciousness 
of  the  savage  state,  than  with  the  solemn  and  softening  views  of 
death  which  Christianity  teaches.”  Inconsistent  man !  you  know 
well  that  if  you  believe  your  own  religion.,  you  hold  a  burial 
by  Catholics,  to  be  not  a  Christian  burial,  as  you  hyprocritically 
term  it,  but  an  idolatrous  burial,  and  of  course  according  to  your 
faith,  the  only  chance  of  Christian  burial  for  such  outcast  members 
of  our  Church  would  be  the  absence  of  our  religious  rites  and  cere¬ 
monies  in  committing  them  to  the  earth.  Again,  you  charge  this 
feature  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  as  a  peculiarity  in  the  Catholic 
Church : — whereas,  making  even  great  allowances,  it  is  impossible 
to  suppose  you  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  this  discipline  re¬ 
specting  interment,  is  universally  insisted  on  in  the  discipline  of  the 
Quakers,  who  are  by  no  means  charged  with  the  “  maliciousness  of 
the  savage  state,”  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  proverbial  for  their  pacific 
and  humane  dispositions. 

In  explanation  of  the  reasons  for  regulating  and  restricting  ex¬ 
penditures  by  trustees  of  Catholic  churches,  I  mentioned  the  incon¬ 
venient  anomaly  of  the  fact,  that  whilst  the  law  of  the  land  gave  to 
those  trustees  the  privilege  of  contracting  heavy  debts,  whether 
wisely  or  otherwise,  the  law  of  Catholic  morals,  on  the  other  hand, 
required  that  the  Catholic  people  should  'pay  them.  I  did  not  institute 
any  comparison  in  reference  to  Protestant  morality  upon  this  subject, 
nor  am  I  disposed  to  enter  upon  any  such  controversy.  In  your  re¬ 
marks  upon  this  you  tell  us — “  It  is  only  where  the  Bible  is  a  com¬ 
mon  household  book,  that  men  have  confidence  enough  in  each  other 
to  part  with  substantial  values  for  promises  to  pay  written  on  paper.” 
This  all  may  be  so ;  but  in  Catholic  times,  and  in  Catholic  countries, 
at  the  present  day,  not  even  “promises”  written  on  paper  ai’e  re¬ 
quired.  Among  the  merchants  of  Spain,  it  would  be  deemed  an  in¬ 
sult,  in  dealing  among  themselves,  to  ask  a  receipt  for  money  paid^ 
In  like  manner,  specie  being  the  circulating  medium,  it  would  be 
considered  equally  an  insult  to  count  over  the  specie,  which  was 
paid  in  boxes  said  to  contain  such  or  such  a  sum.  But  after  all,  it 
may  be  that  “promises  to  pay”  are  peculiar  to  Protestant  countries, 
where  the  Bible  is  a  household  book,  whilst  the  payment  de  facto, 
with  or  without  the  written  promise,  should  happen  to  be  on  the 
side  of  the  ignorant  Catholics.  The  discovery  which  you  have 
made  upon  this  point  cannot  but  be  consoling  to  those  who  have  suf¬ 
fered  so  much  by  Banks  and  banking  institutio-ns.  It  is  true  that  mil¬ 
lions  and  millions  have  been  lost ;  and  the  usand  of  families  reduced 
22 


338 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


to  beggary — tliat  the  “  written  papers  ”  for  which  they  parted  with 
“  substantial  values,”  carrying  on  their  face  “  promises  to  pay  ” — have 
never  been  redeemed — still  it  may  be  some  comfort  to  them,  when 
they  look  on  the  face  of  those  documents  tliat  you  have  traced  their 
origin  to  the  Bible,  and  identified  them  as  the  offspring  of  Evangeli¬ 
cal  Protestantism. 

Again,  in  your  sti’ictures  on  my  Pastoral,  you  designated  the 
“Cross”  a  “dagger.”  In  your  reference  to  that  subject  your  words 
are :  “  It  was  printed  a  dagger  and  I  supposed  it  meant  a  dagger.” 
This,  sir,  will  not  do.  You  are  certainly  too  well  acquainted  with 
the  usages  of  Christendom,  not  to  have  known  that  it  was  printed 
as  a  symbol  of  Christianity — the  sign  of  the  Cross.  But  it  will  not 
do  on  another  account,  which  is,  that  the  witticism  of  the  dagger 
was  not  original  with  you,  but  borrowed  from  others:  and  you  have 
the  choice  of  considering  it  as  a  second-handed  wit  or  affected  ig¬ 
norance — so  that  you  cannot  avail  yourself  of  that  child-like  sim¬ 
plicity  with  which  you  tell  the  public  “  It  was  printed  a  dagger,  and 
you  supposed  it  meant  a  dagger.”  Pardon  me,  sir,  but  you  did  not 
suppose  any  such  thing. 

A  very  large  portion  of  your  letter  is  made  up  of  extracts  taken 
from  my  Pastoral  Letter,  and  my  Apology  in  defence  of  it,  as  if  you 
had  discovered  a  discrepancy  between  them.  This  is  a  discovery 
wliich  I  am  sure  none  of  your  readers  will  be  able  to  make.  You 
say  that  the  Apology  “  takes  back  and  denies  the  very  gist  of  the 
Pastoi’al  Letter,”  and  you  make  quotations  as  if  you  believed  in 
your  own  assertion.  But  there  is  no  reader,  who  is  capable  of 
understanding  either,  that  will  discover  anything  either  “taken 
back”  or  “denied”  in  the  one  which  had  been  asserted  in  the  other. 
The  Apology  indeed  rebukes  your  misrepresentation  of  the  Pastoral; 
and  it  does  nothing  more,  except  to  confirm  and  perhaps  explain  the 
document  assailed.  You  put,  from  the  Apology,  a  passage  in  italics, 
in  which  I  jiresurae  you  depend  to  bear  you.  out  in  your  statement. 
It  is  that,  in  which  I  say,  m  reference  to  the  requirements  of  the 
Pastoral  Letter,  addressed  to  the  people,  that  “  it  will  be  for  them¬ 
selves  individually  to  determine  whether  they  shall  conform  or  notf  and 
pray,  was  not  this  understood  in  the  Pastoral  Letter  ?  The  mean¬ 
ing  in  both  is,  that  it  shall  not  be  for  Mr.  Hale  to  determine — that 
it  is  a  matter  which  is  to  be  governed  by  their  own  sense  of  moral 
and  religious  duty.  There  is  one  other  matter  to  which  I  must  re¬ 
fer  before  I  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject.  It  is  that  in  which 
we  have  your  authority  for  the  following  pretended  fact : 

“  A  short  time  ago,”  you  say,  “  in  one  of  the  churches  of  this 
city,  a  Catholic  priest,  at  confession,  condemned  a  young  woman  for 
having  attended  family  worship  with  the  family  whom  she  served, 
to  walk  upon  her  bare  knees  around  the  church  until  the  blood 
issued  freely  from  her  wounds.”  I  agree  with  you,  sir,  that  if  such 
a  thing  took  place,  it  was  “  cruel  and  indecent.”  The  only  charge 
I  have  to  make  against  the  statement  is,  that  it  is  not  according  to 
the  forms  of  the  Catholic  Church — and  more, — that  I  am  willing  to 


LETTER  TO  DAVID  HALE. 


830 


risk  the  consequences  of  asserting  "before  the  public  that  it  is  fahe 
and  unfounded.  If  it  were  true,  knowing  that  its  publication  would 
give  pain  to  the  whole  Catholic  body,  I  cannot  conceive  that  you 
would  have  denied  your  well-known  feelings  the  luxury  of  publish¬ 
ing  it  with  the  names  of  the  parties,  the  time  and  place  of  the  oc¬ 
currence.  Another  reason  why  I  do  not  believe  it  true,  is,  that  I 
trust  there  is  no  priest  in  this  city  so  devoid  of  sense — no  Catholic 
young  woman  so  ignorant  and  silly  as  to  have  been  parties  to  so 
barbarous  a  ti-ansaction ;  and  further,  that  there  is  perhaps  no 
man  in  this  city  who  has  not  arrived  at  the  period  of  second  child¬ 
hood,  capable  of  believing  it  except  yourself.  There  may  indeed  be 
found  men  who  would  say  they  believe  it,  but  at  the  moment  of  the 
utterance,  their  interior  sense  and  conviction  would  accuse  them  of 
uttering  what  is  not  true.  At  all  events,  you  have  made  the  asser¬ 
tion  in  clear  and  unequivocal  terms,  and  in  this  instance  you  have 
avoided  a  feature  common  in  your  style,  which  is  the  blending  of 
the  malice  that  inflicts  a  wound,  with  the  artifice  and  ambiguity 
w'hich  would  escape  the  responsibility  of  having  dealt  the  How. 
I  call  upon  you  then,  since  you  have  made  the  charge,  to  substan¬ 
tiate  it.  I  call  upon  you  to  give  the  name  of  the  priest  and  the 
name  of  the  Catholic  young  woman,  and  if  you  do,  you  shall  soon 
be  convinced  that  the  transaction  which  you  have  described,  is  not 
according  to  the  forms  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

One  word,  in  passing,  on  making  Catholic  domestics  attend  family 
worship  in  houses  where  a  difterent  religion  is  professed.  The  prac¬ 
tice  of  flimily  worship  is,  in  itself,  not  only  commendable,  but  tender 
and  interesting.  Yet  Protestants  mistake,  it  seems  to  me,  not  only 
the  rights  of  conscience,  but  their  own  interests,  when  they  bring 
conscience  into  the  account  with  their  servants,  as  an  equivalent  for 
wages.  The  conscience  of  the  servant  is  as  free  as  that  of  the 
master  and  mistress;  and  if  I  had,  as  I  sometimes  have  had,  Protes¬ 
tant  domestics,  I  should  think  it  sinful  to  make  them  attend  family 
devotion,  so  long  as  they  were  under  the  impression  that  they  were 
oftending  God  by  it.  A  Presbyterian  servant  in  the  house  of  a 
Catholic,  or  a  Catholic  in  the  house  of  a  Jew,  or  a  Protestant,  ought 
to  be  exempted  from  the  petty  persecution  of  being  compelled  to 
attend  family  worship.  When  the  servant  gives  his  or  her  labor 
faithfully  and  honestly,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  w'ages  that  are  paid, 
the  terms  of  the  covenant  are  fulfilled.  Anything  beyond  that,  I 
look  upon  as  an  invasion  of  the  rights  of  conscience.  Besides, 
Protestants  in  this,  do  not  understand  their  own  interests.  It  is 
only  when  they  can  debauch  the  conscience  of  their  Catholic  servants 
by  making  them  hypocrites  enough  to  attend  the  indefinite  worship 
of  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Jew,  Baptist,  or  Unitarian  families  with 
whom  they  may  happen  to  be  earning  their  wages,  by  their  toilsome 
labor ;  it  is  only  then,  I  say,  that  those  masters  have  occasion  to 
suspect  them.  Their  safety  and  the  safety  of  the  trusts  committed 
to  their  servants,  depends  on  the  simplicity  and  integrity  of  that 
conscience  which  they  have  been  so  ingenious  to  pervert. 


840 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


You  tell  me  that  my  quotation  from  St.  Paul  respecting  “  obe* 
dience  to  prelates,”  must  come  from  a  higher  authority  before  it 
will  subdue  the  royal  priesthood  of  the  Tabernacle.  Let  me  quote, 
then,  the  same  text  from  the  Protestant  Bible — which  has  the  sanc¬ 
tion  of  a  very  “  high  authority,”  even  King  James  the  First, 

The  words  are,  “  Obey  them  that  have  rule  over  you,  and  submit 
yourselves.”  Now,  not  to  make  a  difficulty  with  you  about  words, 
let  us  suppose  that  “  prelates  ”  and  “  them  that  have  rule  over  you,” 
mean  the  same  thing.  What  is  here  required  is  what  is  done  by 
the  Catholic  clergy  and  laity,  to  those  “  who  have  rule  over  them.” 
But  I  would  not  answer  for  the  reception,  even  of  the  Apostle,  if  he 
came  to  the  Tabernacle  to  institute  among  its  free  thinkers  any  such 
tyrannical  rule. 

I  have  already  remarked  that  I  shall  not  dispute  against  you  the 
correctness  of  any  opinion  you  may  be  pleased  to  entertain ;  and 
there  are  in  connection  with  these  opinions  of  yours,  a  great  many 
discretions  as  to  what  point  I  should  answer.  First,  about  the 
Pope  as  a  prince  and  a  pontiff.  Second,  about  the  pre-eminence 
of  priests  and  bishops.  Third,  about  the  limitation  of  powers 
which  are  exercised  by  divine  right  in  the  rules  of  the  Church. 

That  you  should  have  erroneous  ideas  upon  all  these  subjects, 
does  not  surprise  me ;  and,  if  you  asked  for  information  in  the  name 
of  the  disciple,  I  should  be  most  happy  to  afford  it, — beginning  from 
the  first  question  of  the  Catechism,  “  Who  made  you  ?”  and  going 
on  to  the  highest  mysteries  of  the  Christian  faith.  But  you  ask 
for  information  in  the  character  of  a  disputant ;  and  in  that  spirit  I 
cannot  afford  to  give  it.  If  then  you  would  know  the  solution  of 
your  questions,  I  leave  you  to  infer  it  from  a  few  genei’al  principles 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  pointing  out,  occasionally,  the  difference  of 
the  medium  through  which  these  principles  are  regarded  by  the 
Catholic,  as  contrasted  with  the  Protestant  mind.  In  the  first  place 
we  look  upon  the  Church  as  having  been  organized  by  our  Saviour, 
on  a  model  which  is  enduring  and  unalterable.  You,  on  the  other 
hand,  look  upon  it  as  something  which  may  be  altered,  broken  doivui 
and  built  up,  according  to  the  pleasure  of  men. 

Our  Saviour  presented  himself  as  sent  by  the  Father,  and  to  teach 
what  things  he  had  learned  from  him.  He  taught  them — and  he 
gained  discqiles.  From  the  disciples,  he  selected  twelve,  and  he 
made  them  Apostles.  From  the  twelve,  he  selected  o«e,  and  he 
made  him  a  chief  among  the  Apostles.  The  powers  which  he  gave 
to  them  all,  collectively,  he  gave  to  this  one,  singularly  and  person¬ 
ally.  It  was  his  prerogative,  as  well  as  duty,  to  feed  the  sheep  as 
well  as  the  lambs,  and  to  confirm  his  brethren.  Here  is  the  frame¬ 
work  of  the  Christian  Church.  Christ  did  not  change  it,  during  his 
time  on  earth,  and  he  gave  no  authority  to  men,  whereby  they  might 
change  it  after  his  ascension.  The  Church  has  descended  to  us  in 
its  primitive  form.  The  disciples  and  the  apostles  have  increased 
in  number  over  the  whole  earth ;  but  the  chief  of  the  apostleship,  is 
wie  as  when  first  elevated  to  his  singular  and  special  office.  Now  you, 


LETTER  TO  DAVID  HALE. 


341 


as  a  Protestant,  have  changed  all  this.  And  you  view  it,  not  as  a 
Catholic  does,  hut  you  view  it  according  to  the  standard  of  your 
own  notions  of  right  and  wrong. 

Clirist  communicated  what  things  he  had  learned  from  the  Father, 
to  that  Church.  All  believed  the  same  doctrines — but  some,  besides 
believing  themselves,  were  appointed  to  the  office  of  teachers  of  all 
nations,  to  teach  what  things  they  had  learned  from  their  Common 
Master.  Those  who  were  associated  with  them,  or  who  succeeded 
in  the  order  of  time,  by  lawful  appointment,  were  appointed  to  dis¬ 
charge  the  same  duties — with  no  limitation  as  to  space,  but  the 
boundaries  of  the  earth ;  or  no  limitation,  as  to  time,  but  the  con¬ 
summation  of  the  world.  The  Catholics,  however  unworthy  in  our 
lives,  are  constituted  heirs  and  successors  in  this  organization.  As 
our  ministers  have  no  right  to  give  out  their  opinions  ;  but  only  to 
teach  as  witnesses,  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  the  truths  preserved  in 
this  apostolical  and  universal  society,  it  follows,  as  a  consequence, 
that  they  have  no  dominion  over  the  faith  of  the  people.  They  are 
witness  of  doctrine  and  not  inventors  of  speculations.  The  humblest 
of  their  flock  can  tell  when  they  bear  false  witness  against  any  truth 
attested  in  the  present  time,  or  at  any  time,  by  the  faith  of  the  whole 
Society. 

Here  then  is  another  thing  which  you,  as  a  Protestant,  must  think 
wrong.  The  ministers  of  religion  with  you  are  not  so  much  teachers 
as  preachers.  They  take  the  Bible — give  out  their  opinion — and 
refer  the  congregations  for  the  truth  of  them  back  to  the  text. 
When  they  read  the  text  in  the  Bible  at  home,  they  are  referred  to 
their  owm  brain  to  determine  its  meaning ;  and  from  the  brain  results 
again — opinion,  opinion.  Here  then  is  a  difierence  between  us. 
With  us  the  doctrine  of  Revelations  are  facts,  resting  on  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  Scriptures,  rightly  understood,  confirmed  by  the  unani¬ 
mous  faith  of  the  Church  from  the  days  of  Christ  downward ;  and, 
of  course,  resting  ultimately  upon  the  veracity  of  God.  They  are 
believed  by  virtue  of  that  veracity;  and  therefore  the  conviction 
which  they  produce  is  faith  unwavering  and  constant.  With  you  it 
is  all  opinion.  And  between  these  two  words,  in  reference  to  Chris¬ 
tian  Revelation,  “  Faith”  and  “Opinion,”  there  is  a  depth  of  differ¬ 
ence  which  you  would  do  well  to  fathom.  The  Catholic  people  are 
alone  truly  independent  in  their  religious  belief.  No  minister  of 
theirs — no  bishop — nor  Pope — nor  all  together — have  any  power  to 
alter  one  iota  of  that  sacred  deposit,  which  Christ  bequeathed  to  his 
followers.  Rot  so  wdth  you.  One  of  your  ministers  may,  in  follow¬ 
ing  out  the  farther  lights  of  what  he  calls  Scripture,  deviate  himself, 
and  lead  his  congregation  into  the  same  ranks  of  socinianism,  before 
this  poor  people  are  aware  of  it.  In  matters  of  this  kind  they  have 
no  fixed  point  of  departure,  from,  which  they  might  calculate  either 
their  course  or  distance.  Hence  the  alarm  w'hen  some  new  evangeli¬ 
cal  impostor  arises  among  your  people.  If  he  preaches  about  the  end 
of  the  w'orld  in  a  montli  or  two,  and  quotes  a  profusion  of  Scripture, 
W'hich  he  does  not  understand,  he  can  have  crowds  of  followers  and 


342 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


ilisciples.  The  same  man  might  preach  himself  into  consumption 
before  an  audience  of  Catholics,  and  no  matter  how  learned  or  how 
ignorant  they  should  be,  he  could  never  make  a  convert.  J^ow  what 
is  the  reason  of  this  difference  ?  It  is  that  the  Catholics  hold  the 
truths  which  God  revealed  as  truths,  and  believe  them  by  a  principle 
of  faith  relying  on  the  divine  veracity, — where  you,  as  a  Protestant, 
believe  them,  if  you  believe  them  at  all,  in  the  order  of  opinions, 
more  or  less  probable,  according  to  your  interpretation  of  Scripture. 
If  therefore  you  go  to  hear  the  advocate  for  the  proximate  end  of 
the  world,  he  gives  his  opinion,  quotes  Scripture,  interprets  it,  and 
this  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  is  done  by  your  minister  at  home. 
You,  then,  having  no  principle  of  guidance  to  determine  which  is 
right,  are  as  liable  to  follow  the  one  as  the  other. 

This  you  call  a  privilege,  but  it  is  the  privilege  of  perpetual  insta¬ 
bility  and  uncertainty  of  belief  The  privilege  of  being  made  the 
dupe  of  every  artful  preacher  that  pleases — the  privilege  of  freedom. 
Be  it  so.  But  it  was  not  so  that  Christ  ap])ointed  men  to  perpetuate 
his  doctrine.  The  appointed  teachers  of  that  doctrine,  and  disciples 
who  should  learn  from  their  teachers  and  believe. 

Such  being  the  organization  of  the  Church,  I  have  to  say  but  one 
word  respecting  the  powers  of  its  chief  bishop,  and  his  colleagues  in 
the  ministry.  You  seem  to  be  alarmed  at  the  fact  that  the  Pope  is, 
besides,  a  temporal  prince,  and  at  this  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  it 
came  from  a  school  boy  of  the  Green  Mountains,  who  had  just  gone 
as  far  in  his  elementary  education  as  the  story  of  the  burning  of 
“  John  Rogers,  and  his  nine  children,  with  one  at  the  breast !”  But 
coming  from  a  man  of  your  age  and  knowledge  of  the  world,  the 
expression  of  alarm  certainly  does  surprise  me.  In  order  to  com¬ 
pose  you,  therefore,  I  will  merely  state  the  Pope’s  being  a  tempo¬ 
ral  prince  is,  in  the  mind  of  Catholics,  an  accident ;  and  that,  as  a 
temporal  prince  they  look  upon  him  as  any  other  of  the  rulers  of  the 
earth.  The  religious  relation  which  they  bear  to  him  is  not  greater 
when  he  is  dwelling  in  the  Vatican,  than  it  would  be  if  he  were 
pining  in  the  prisons  of  France  or  the  catacombs  of  Rome.  The 
duties  of  his  office,  and  the  extent  of  his  power  in  the  Church,  are 
as  well  known  as  those  of  the  President  in  this  Republic.  As  a 
temporal  prince,  he  has  no  authority  out  of  his  own  States.  As  a 
Pope,  in  his  relations  with  the  Church,  he  belongs  to  the  whole 
Catholic  world,  and  in  that  relation  between  Catholic  and  Catholic, 
whether  Pope  or  other,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  strangers  and  for¬ 
eigners,  but  all  are  citizens  and  domestics  of  God. 

I  do  not  mention  any  of  these  things  in  the  supposition  that  you 
will  approve  of  them.  As  a  Protestant,  and  considering  the  distorted 
and  distorting  influence  of  your  education,  in  reference  to  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Church,  I  suppose  you  regard  all  this  as  one  great  abomination. 
If  this  be  your  opinion  I  can  only  oppose  the  unanimous  one  hundred 
and  eighty  millions  of  Catholics,  throughout  the  world,  who  look 
Upon  all  this  as  a  most  merciful  institution  of  God,  for  the  guidance 
of  the  wandering  intellect  of  man  ;  and  for  carrying  on  those  eternal 


LETTER  TO  DAVID  HALE. 


343 


interests  of  oiir  race,  for  which  iiis  Divine  Son  suffered  on  the  tree. 
This  Society  has  survived  the  hostility  and  the  revolutions  of  the 
world  for  eighteen  hundred  years.  Its  members  enjoy  jieace  of  soul, 
and  security  in  its  communion ;  and  the  only  privilege  which  they 
as-k  of  you  is  the  privilege  of  enjoying  for  themselves  the  same  right 
of  choice  which  you  claim  and  exercise.  Should  you,  however,  be 
cruel  enough  to  deny  it,  they  will  claim  it  without  your  permis¬ 
sion — though  not  without  the  risk  of  having  “  false  witness  borne 
against  them”  both  in  the  Journal  of  Commerce  and  the  Broadway 
Tabernacle. 

Pardon  me,  sir,  if  I  offend  you  by  prefixing  the  symbol  of  redemp¬ 
tion  to  my  unworthy  name,  while  I  subscribe  myself 
Your  obedient  servant, 

^  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop,  etc. 

New  York,  Nov.  14,  1812. 


Right  Rev’d  Bishop  Hughes  to  David  Hale,  Esq. 

Sir  :  I  have  read  your  letter  of  the  19th  instant,  in  reply  to  mine 
of  the  14th,  and  there  is  so  little  in  it  to  the  point,  that  I  think  the 
public  will  soon  be  relieved  from  tlie  tedium  of  our  discussion.  In 
fact,  the  only  object  for  which  I  addressed  you  was  to  tie  you  hard 
and  fast  to  certain  injurious  statements  which  you  had  put  forth 
against  me,  and  compel  you,  as  far  as  moral  influence  could  have 
that  power,  either  to  prove  them,  or  to  stand  before  the  public  as 
a  man  who  bears  false  witness  against  his  neighbor.  I  thought  you 
could  not  prove  them  ;  and  it  only  remains  to  show,  that  the  hair¬ 
splitting  of  your  last  letter  cannot  screen  you  from  the  verdict 
which  you  would  now  be  willing  to  escape  from. 

You  represented  me  as  requiring  Catholics  to  “abjure  societies,” 
under  penalties,  which  you  exaggerated  in  your  first  strictures  on 
my  Pastoral  Letter.  This  was  false  testimony — ^for,  I  defined  the 
character  of  the  societies  to  which  I  had  referred — as,  “  certain 
societies  ;” — and  these,  “  as  generally  designated  as  Secret  Socie¬ 
ties,”  “  bound  together  by  oaths  or  other  religious  obligations.” 
You  represent  me  as  denouncing  “societies,”  without  qualification 
or  distinction ! 

This  might  have  happened  inadvertently  in  the  first  instance  ;  but 
your  attempt  in  your  last  letter,  to  vindicate  this  perversion,  shows, 
either  that  you  intended  to  misrepresent  me,  and,  therefore,  acted 
from  a  dishonest  purpose  ;  or  else,  that  you  are  utterly  ignorant  of 
the  first  principles  of  logic. 

Suppose  you  had  written  that  men  should  not  encourage  “  certain 
vile  editors,”  who  are  generally  designated  “indecent  editors,” — 
that  is  conductors  of  indecent  papers.  And  suppose  I  should  pro¬ 
claim  that  you  attacked  Editors  generally,  by  omitting  the  qualifica¬ 
tions  “  vile  and  indecent,”  you  would  have  just  reason  to  charge  me 


344 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’ 


with  injurious  misrepresentations.  And  yet,  as  I  should  have  em¬ 
ployed  the  word  “  Editors,”  and  you  had  employed  the  word 
“  Editors,”  what  kind  of  a  pitiable  evasion  would  it  he  for  me  to 
say,  in  the  words  of  your  last  letter,  “  I  quoted  your  precise  lan¬ 
guage  !”  Sir,  this  is  trifling,  unworthy  of  the  conductor  of  a  public 
press ;  unworthy  of  a  professor  of  the  Christian  Religion. 

N ext, — I  did  not  say  that  the  Quakers  required  their  members  to 
abjure  Societies;  but  I  said  what  every  man  acquainted  with  their 
usages  must  know  ;  namely,  that  they  cut  off  from  the  rights  of  in¬ 
terment,  those  who,  while  living,  violated  the  rules,  and  forfeited 
the  communion  of  their  Society. 

Again  :  you  take  me  to  task  for  seeming  to  doubt  w^hether  you 
really  suppose  that  the  “  cross,”  as  printed,  meant  “  a  dagger.” 
For  this  doubt  you  say  you  wdll  not  forgive  me,  although  I  pleaded 
yoixr  pardon.  “  Every  man,”  you  add,  “  has  a  right  to  speak  of  the 
movements  within  his  owm  breast,  and  in  a  society  of  gentlemen, 
has  a  right  to  be  believed.”  I  stand  coi’rected,  since  you  put  it  on 
the  ground  of  “  courtesy.”  When  you  say  that  you  supposed  it  a 
dagger,  courtesy  requires  that  I  should  believe  you,  and  I  do  be¬ 
lieve  you,  accordingly.  If  a  man  opens  his  door  to  my  visit,  and 
tells  that  he  is  not  at  home,  I  am  bound,  in  courtesy,  to  acquiesce. 
Your  case  is  much  stronger  than  this.  But,  in  making  the  state¬ 
ment,  I  really  took  it  for  granted  that  you  could  not  be  serious,  in 
fact,  that  you  were  quizzing.  How  could  I  suppose  that  you  w'ere 
ignorant  of  the  custom  which  prevails,  and  has  ixrevailed,  for  centu¬ 
ries  among  bishops,  of  prefixing  the  sign  of  the  Cross  to  their  offi¬ 
cial  signatures ! 

In  all  civilized  countries  it  is  customary  among  gentlemen  ta  treat 
the  ministers  of  religion  with,  at  least,  the  ordinary  courtesy  which 
they  observe  tow^ards  each  other — and  when  I  remembered  the 
style  in  which  you  thought  proper  to  present  my  name  before  the 
public,  in  your  strictures  on  my  Pastoral  Letter,  it  wvas  quite  natu¬ 
ral  for  me  to  regard  you  as  washing  to  be  a  wag.,  whatever  else  you 
might,  or  might  not,  be.  Your  words  are  these— “W^e  do  not 
think  it  necessary  for  us  to  notice  Pastoral  Letters  generally,  but 
this  John  is  the  same  man  who  headed  a  political  meeting,  last  year, 
for  the  nomination  of  members  of  Assembly,  and  has  shown,  in 
various  ways,  that  he  can  turn  his  hand  to  Pastoi*al  Politics  as  well 
as  Religion,  and  as  he  avows  himself  the  appointee  of  a  foreign 
Prince,  who  not  only  issues  bulls,  but  raises  armies,  makes  war,  de¬ 
thrones  kings  (or  did  once)  and  ovex’turns  nations,  it  is  right  enough 
to  examine  a  little  the  horns  of  the  bulls  which  he  sets  to  roaring 
amonc?  us.  *  *  *  The  letter  is  sisrned  John  Iluo-hes  with  a 
dagger.”  I  do  not  stop  to  point  out  the  false  statements  in  this 
quotation,  although  they  are  as  thick  as  it  would  be  well  possible  to 
pack  them,  wdthin  the  same  compass  ;  but  I  merely  suggest  the  in¬ 
quiry  whether  such  coarse  language  is  in  accordance  with  the  rules 
of  courtesy  ?  Whether  it  w^as  not  natural  for  me,  to  suppose  that 
the  writer  was  ambitious  to  pass  for  a  wit,  or  a  w'ag,  as  you  may 


LETTER  TO  DAVID  HALE, 


345 


choose  ?  And  whether  it  was  possible  for  me  to  imagine,  that  the 
author  of  such  a  passage  could  ever  dream  of  throwing  himself  back 
on  the  reser^^ed  rights  of  a  gentleman  ?  I  hope  these  circumstances 
will  extenuate  somewhat  my  mistake,  when  I  took  it  for  granted 
that  you  could  not  be  serious  in  mistaking  the  cross  for  “  a  dag¬ 
ger  but  at  all  events,  how  was  it  possible  for  me  to  anticipate 
that  the  author  of  such  a  wanton  and  coarse  attack,  should  even  as¬ 
sume  to  play  the  “Magister  Elegantiarium  ” — the  arbiter  of  the 
courtesy  among  gentlemen  ! !  Leaving  this  aside,  then,  I  think  it 
hard  that  you,  professing,  at  least,  to  be  a  Christian,  should  refuse 
to  forgive  me  for  a  mistake  into  which  your  style  had  betrayed 
me.  1,  on  the  contrary,  forgive  you,  in  my  mind,  regularly  twice  a 
day  ;  and  as  often,  besides,  as  I  happen  to  think  of  you  and  the 
^‘■Journal  of  Commerce.’’'’ 

So,  after  all,  you  are  obliged  to  bach  out  of  the  false  accusation 
respecting  the  priest  who,  as  you  alleged,  made  a  Catholic  girl  walk 
round  the  church  on  her  knees,  “  until  the  blood  issued  freely  from 
her  wounds.”  I  thought  so.  And  now,  for  your  information,  let 
me  tell  you  that  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  “  promises  made,”  at 
the  Washington  Hall,  or  elsewhere.  You  asserted  then,  a  gross 
calumny,  which  you  were  never  able  to  prove.  I  had  nothing  to  do 
with  calling  upon  you  for  the  proofs  of  it.  I  knew  it  would  be  use¬ 
less.  I  never  made  allusion  to  the  subject  in  public,  and  all  the 
statements  in  the  “  Journal  of  Commercef  representing  me  in  that 
business,  you  may  add  as  an  appendix  to  the  false  statements 
already  noticed.  Other  gentlemen  thought  proper  to  call  on  you, 
and  demand  proof,  but  I  did  not.  And,  after  all,  how  did  you  get 
out  of  the  scrape  ?  Three  lines,  giving  the  name  of  the  priest 
whom  you  accused,  and  the  parties  in  the  accusation,  would  have 
been  sufficient.  Instead  of  this,  you  waited  some  two  or  three 
months,  until — from  anonymous  pamphlets — hasty  and  inconsider¬ 
ate  proceedings,  involving  the  reputation  of  fifteen  or  twenty  gen¬ 
tlemen,  who  were  in  no  wise  connected  with  your  statement,  had 
been  raked  together  by  the  industry  of  some  scavenger  of  scandal 
who  appeared  to  be  at  your  command,  and  all  that  mass  was  pre¬ 
sented,  in  several  columns  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce.,  as  the  proof 
of  a  fact,  which,  if  it  had  been  true.,  could  have  been  established  in  a 
half  dozen  lines  of  a  single  column ;  and  because  the  gentlemen 
who  did  call  on  you  did  not  think  proper  to  re-agitate  such  a  varie¬ 
ty  of  questions,  involving  the  private  feelings  and  character  of  so 
many  persons,  you  escaped  from  the  exposure,  respecting  a  single 
and  malignant  charge,  which  you  have  done  so  much  to  merit. 

It  is  related  in  the  history  of  the  persecutions  of  Ireland  that  a 
poor  Catholic  was  on  his  trial  for  murder,  and  though  there  was  no 
witness  against  him — though  the  man  was  alive  at  the  time,  who 
was  said  to  have  been  murdered — though  the  judge  charged  the 
jury  accordingly — still,  they  brought  him  in  guilty,  on  the  plea  that 
though  he  was  innocent  of  that  crime,  he  had  committed  others  be¬ 
fore,  and,  therefore,  ought  to  be  hanged.  Out  of  Ireland,  I  pre- 


346 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


sume,  the  annals  of  malevolence  never  furnished  a  nearer  approach 
to  the  ethics  of  that  jury,  than  was  found  in  your  reply  to  the  proofs 
demanded  of  you,  by  the  gentlemen  at  Washington  Hall. 

On  the  subject  of  the  petty  persecutions  of  conscience  that  are 
carried  on  against  servants  in  a  few,  generally  speaking,  obscure 
families,  I  am  glad  to  perceive  that  my  remarks  have  awakened  in 
your  breast  symptoms  of  humanity  and  good  feeling.  It  is  not  I, 
but  the  religion  which  they  profess,  that  forbids  Catholics  from 
joining  in  the  forms  of  worship  belonging  to  Jews,  Presbyterians, 
Unitarians,  or  others,  with  whom  they  may  live.  You  say  that 
the  Catholics,  in  rejerence  to  religion,  have  nothing  but  opinion  to 
depend  on,  like  their  Protestant  fellow-citizens.  I  am  surprised  at 
this.  As,  however,  you  do  not  appear  to  be  a  proficient  in  dialectics, 
I  will  furnish  you  with  some  illustrations  which  may  aid  you  in 
comtjrehending  “  a  difference  ”  which  you  do  not  seem  to  under¬ 
stand.  The  doctrines  of  the  Constitution,  in  civil  matters,  are 
facts,  and  not  oiiinions.  The  appointment  of  judges,  to  determine 
what  those  facts  are,  is  itself  a  fact,  and  not  an  opinion.  Their 
uniform  decision,  with  respect  to  those  facts,  is  also  a  fact,  and  not 
an  opinion.  Now,  this  will  coi^espond  with  the  dogmas  of  revela¬ 
tion,  and  the  living  authorities,  at  all  times  contemporaneous  with 
their  existence  and  descent,  to  determine  what  they  are.  This, 
although  every  human  comparison  fails,  may  illustrate  to  your  mind 
what  I  me.ant  to  assert  with  regard  to  the  facts,  which  are  believed 
in  the  Catholic  Church.  In  the  faith  of  that  Church  there  is  no 
teaching  of  opinion  whatever — there  never  has  been — there  never 
can  be.  What  is  opinion  in  the  Catholic  Church,  is  something  not 
included  in  the  Revelations  of  God. 

When  He  has  vouchsafed  to  speak,  what  he  says  is  a  fact,  a  truth 
to  be  believed,  not  an  opinion  to  be  tried  at  the  bar  of  man’s  feeble 
reason,  and,  therefore,  opinion  forms  no  part  of  the  Church’s  doc¬ 
trines.  You  would  not,  perhaps,  understand  this  so  well,  if  I  did 
not  furnish  the  counterpart  which  belongs  to  you  as  a  Protestant. 
Supposing  you,  in  your  civil  cajiacity,  were  to  hold  that  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  Constitution  are  mere  opinions  written  out  in  plain 
English,  which  everybody  can  understand  and  interpret  for  him¬ 
self;  and  that,  therefore,  there  is  no  need  oi  judges — and  that,  if 
judges  have  decided  otherwise,  it  was  a  usurpation  on  their  part 
upon  the  rights  of  the  people,  who  are  abject  enough  to  submit  to 
it.  You  would  then  exemplify  in  your  relations  to  the  State,  that 
which  you  now  contend  for,  in  your  ideas  of  the  economy  of  reve¬ 
lation.  But  every  other  individual  would  have  the  same  right  as 
yourself,  and  the  Constitution  would  thus  soon  come  to  mean  what 
the  Bible,  in  your  hands,  is  now  made  to  mean ;  that  is,  everything 
which  a  man,  by  perverting  its  true  meaning,  is  pleased  to  adopt  as 
his  own  opinion.  Now,  jijst  reflect  a  little  upon  this  ;  as  an  imper¬ 
fect  illustration  of  the  difference  between  facts  and  opinions,  in  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  faith  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  established  in  the 
world. 


LETTER  TO  DAVID  HALE. 


347 


I  thought,  however,  that  the  authority  of  King  James’  Bible  would 
have  satisfied  you  with  respect  to  the  oflScers  in  the  Church  whom 
the  people  are  directed  to  “  obey,”  You  say  that  neither  “  prelates” 
nor  “  those  who  rule”  are  intended  by  the  Apostle ;  but  that  he 
meant  “  leading  men”  ! ! !  and  you  yourself  claim  for  “  leading  men” 
that  they  should  be  “treated  with  deference,  respect,  and  obedience.” 
Very  well.  Let  us  suppose  it  to  be  “  leading  men,”  for  argument’s 
sake — for  I  will  go  a  great  way  to  accommodate  you.  Why  then 
did  you  not  allow  me  the  advantage  of  your  own  interpretation 
when  I  published  my  Pastoral  Letter?  You  will  admit,  I  presume, 
that  I  am  a  “  leading  man”  among  the  Catholics.  Why,  then,  since 
you  proclaim  that  as  such  I  shouM  have  been  treated  with  “  defer¬ 
ence,  respect,  and  obedience,”  why,  I  say,  did  you  j^reach  up  to 
them  disregard,  disrespect  and  disobedience  towards  me  ?  And  in 
doing  this,  why  did  you  go  further,  by  bearing  false  witness  against 
me  ?  Why  did  you  say  I  attacked  the  institutions  of  the  country  ? 
Why  did  you  charge  them  with  unfitness  to  enjoy  the  blessings  of 
liberty,  if  they  should  treat  their  “  leading  man”  as  the  Bible  directs 
him  to  be  treated  according  to  your  own  interpretation  ? 

As  to  your  opinions,  as  you  know,  I  will  not  dispute  any  of  them. 
In  like  manner,  I  shall  avoid  anything  like  religious  controversy  with 
you.  This  for  several  reasons ;  First,  Because  in  the  matter  of  dis¬ 
cussion  alone,  you  show  yourself  so  utterly  unacquainted  with  the 
ordinary  rules  of  reasoning,  as  not  to  be  able  to  appreciate  an  argu¬ 
ment,  or  to  know  when  you  are  driven  from  a  false  position.  Sec¬ 
ondly,  Because  I  suspect  you  are  but  ill  acquainted  with  any  system 
of  religion ;  and  perhaps  unable  to  define  your  belief.  Thirdly,  Be¬ 
cause  I  do  not  venture  too  much  in  stating  that  you  are  entirely 
ignorant  of  the  Catholic  religion  except  as  you  may  have  learned  it 
from  the  “  Key  of  Popery,”  and  other  classical  and  theological  works, 
of  similar  distinction.  Did  you  ever  in  your  life  read  a  Catholic 
book  of  any  acknowledged  authority  in  the  Church  ?  I  doubt  it ; 
and  if  you  did,  was  it  in  that  sincere  mood  and  disposition  of  mind 
which  is  requisite  to  understand  wdiat  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
Church  really  are  ?  Or,  on  the  contrary,  did  you  not  read  it  rather 
as  the  deist  reads  the  Bible — for  the  purpose  of  extracting  from  it 
the  weapons  for  its  overthrow  ?  In  any  of  these  contingencies,  it  is 
evident  that  what  you  stand  in  need  of,  is  not  argument  so  much  as 
mformation.  And  if  you  really  desire  information  on  this  subject,  I 
shall  be  most  happy  to  aflbrd  it,  both  by  ofiering  you  the  use  of  my 
library,  and  furnishing  such  aid  by  oral  communications  as  your  case 
may  require.  I  shall  be  prepared  to  solve  every  objection,  -wliich 
may  occur  to  you  in  the  investigation,  as  far  as  my  ability  will  go. 
Then  when  you  have  learned  what  the  Catholic  Church  really  is,  you 
will  be  qualified  to  enter  on  a  disputation  against  it,  but  not  before. 

I  do  not  make  these  observations  in  the  spirit  of  disrespect.  Far 
fi’oin  it.  No  man  can  excel  in  every  department,  and,  of  course,  I 
am  willing  to  acknowledge  that  I  should  be  as  utterly  disqualified 
for  a  discussion  with  you  on  political  economy,  the  science  of  bank- 


348 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’ 


Ing,  or  the  details  of  commerce,  as  you  are  for  a  discussion  on  the 
subject  of  the  Catholic  religion. 

In  the  mean  time,  your  strictures  on  my  Pastoral  Letter  abound 
\vith  so  many  unfounded  charges,  that  I  shall,  without  classifying 
•  them,  make  a  little  enumeration  of  those  that  are  most  palpable. 
Y  on  say : 

1.  That  I  “have  led  my  followers  to  the  polls.” 

2.  That  in  my  Pastoral  Letter  I  “  have  attacked  the  civil  institu¬ 
tions  of  this  country.” 

3.  That  I  “  have  required  Catholics  to  abjure  societies”  (without 
distinction). 

4.  That  a  Catholic  priest  condemned  a  young  woman  “  to  walk 
upon  her  bare  knees  around  the  church  until  the  blood  issued  fi'eely 
from  her  wounds.” 

Now,  sir,  if  these  charges  are  true,  prove  them.  K  they  are  not 
true,  retract  them,  and  entitle  yourself  thereby  to  the  respect  of 
honorable  men.  But,  sir,  in  demanding  proof  it  will  not  do  for  you 
to  depend  upon  false  staiements  found  in  your  own  columns  or  else¬ 
where.  Tell  me  on  the  testimony  of  a  witness  when  or  where  or 
whom  I  led  to  the  polls. 

2d.  Point  out  the  passage  in  my  Pastoral  Letter  in  which  I  have 
“  attacked  the  civil  institutions  of  this  country.” 

3d.  Show  me  where  I  have  required  Catholics  “  to  abjure  socie¬ 
ties,”  other  than  those  which  are  designated  “  secret,”  and  bound 
together  by  an  oath  or  other  religious  obligation. 

4  th.  Give  me  the  name  of  the  priest  and  of  the  Catholic  young 
woman  who  were  parties  to  “  w'alking  around  the  chiu’ch  on  her 
knees  till  the  blood  issued  freely  from  her  wounds.” 

All  these  are  things  not  above  your  comprehension.  If  these  are 
true  you  must  have  the  means  of  proving  them.  If  they  are  not 
true  you  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  yourself.  But  whether  you  avOI 
or  not,  I  shall  conclude  by  wishing  you  may  “  live  a  thousand  years,” 
and  learn  that  when  a  Catholic  bishop  puts  the  sign  of  the  Cross  be¬ 
fore  his  signature  it  is  the  sjmibol  of  Christianity  you  see,  and  not  a 
“  dagger,”  as  you  “  supposed.” 

>i<  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop,  ete. 

New  York,  Nov.  21,  1842. 


To  Uaviu  Hale,  Esq. : 

Sir — I  have  read  your  letter  in  the  Journal  of  Commerce  of  this 
morning.  A  few  words  will  be  sufficient  in  reply. 

You  state  that  toant  of  leisure  has  prevented  you  from  giving  to 
my  last  letter  that  attention  which  it  deserves.  This  is  precisely 
what  I  anticipated.  Under  the  strongest  conviction  that  you  had 
“borne  false  witness  against  your  neighbor,”  it  occur  red  to  me  that 
you  would  find  yourself  Avonderfully  oppressed  for  want  of  time, 
when  it  should  be  necessary  to  fuimish  the  proof  of  your  statements. 


LETTEE  TO  DAVID  HALE. 


349 


It  was  partly  on  this  account  that  I  contrived  to  make  your  task  so 
simple  and  so  easy ;  for  after  all,  the  question  between  us  is  not  a 
question  in  New  Orleans,  but  a  question  here  in  New  York.  The 
matter  between  us  was  stated  at  the  close  of  my  last  letter,  in  the 
condensed  form  of  the  following  words : 

In  the  mean  time  your  strictures  on  my  Pastoral  Letter  abound 
with  so  many  unfounded  charges,  that  I  shall,  without  classifying 
them,  make  a  little  enumeration  of  those  that  are  are  most  palpable. 
You  say : 

1.  That  I  “hare  led  my  followers  to  the  polls.” 

2.  That  in  my  Pastoral  Letter  I  “  have  attacked  the  civil  institu¬ 
tions  of  this  country.” 

3.  That  I  “  have  required  Catholics  to  abjure  societies”  (without 
distinction). 

4.  That  a  Catholic  priest  condemned  a  young  woman  “  to  walk 
upon  her  bare  knees  around  the  church  until  the  blood  issued  freely 
from  her  wounds.” 

Now,  sir,  if  these  charges  are  true,  prove  them.  If  they  are  not 
true,  retract  them  and  entitle  yourself  thereby  to  the  respect  of  hon¬ 
orable  men.  But,  sir,  in  demanding  proof,  it  will  not  do  for  you  to 
depend  upon  false  statem'ents  found  in  your  otvn  columns  or  elsewhere. 
Tell  me  on  the  testimony  of  a  witness  when  or  where  or  lohom  I  led 
to  the  polls. 

2d.  Point  out  the  passage  in  my  Pastoral  Letter  in  which  I  “  have 
attacked  the  civil  institutions  of  this  country.” 

3d;  Show  me  where  I  have  required  Catholics  to  “abjure  socie¬ 
ties,”  other  than  those  which  are  designated  “  secret,”  and  bound 
together  by  an  oath  or  other  religious  obligation. 

4th.  Give  me  the  name  of  the  priest  and  of  the  Catholic  young 
woman  who  were  parties  to  her  “  walking  round  the  church  on  her 
knees  till  the  blood  issued  freely  from  her  wounds.” 

All  these  are  things  not  above  your  comprehension.  If  they  are 
true  you  must  have  the  means  of  proving  them.  If  they  are  not 
true  you  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  yourself. 

Such  were  some  of  the  statements  you  had  made.  And  I  assumed 
that  a  man  making  pretensions  to  Christian  morality  would  not  make 
such  statements  without  being  authorized  by  certain  proof  of  their 
being  correct  and  true.  This  proof,  then,  is  all  that  I  demanded  as 
above. 

A’ou  allege  that  you  “have  not  had  time,”  after  more  than  two 
weeks,  to  furnish  the  proof.  Pardon  me,  sir,  if  I  must  reject  this 
statement,  unless,  indeed,  you  require  me  to  admit  it  “by  courtesy.” 
J^Iy  first  reason  respecting  it  is,  that  the  proofs,  if  they  were  in  your 
possession,  could  have  been  furnished  in  twenty-five  minutes.  My 
second  reason  is,  that  though  you  could  not  find  twenty-five  minutes 
for  that  purpose,  you  have  been  able  to  find  time  to  translate  a  long 
document  of  anti-Catholic  matter,  issued  by  the  trustees  of  a  church 
in  New  Orleans. 

Neither  do  you  appear  to  have  been  pressed  of  time  in  this  opera- 


350 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


tion,  since  you  seem  to  have  considered  other  possible  translations  of 
the  document ;  and  tell  us  that  “  there  is  not  a  sentence  which  might 
not  have  been  translated  some  other  way.”  I  shall  not  criticize 
your  translation,  for  I  hold  both  the  translation  and  the  original  to 
be  of  small  huportance.  I  could  furnish  you  with  a  bushel  of  such 
documents ;  and  the  reason  why  I  notice  your  translation  at  all,  is 
the  difficulty  which  the  time  spent  on  it  presents  to  my  mind,  in 
contrast  with  another  statement  of  yours,  in  Avhich  you  assert  that 
you  had  not  leisure  enough  to  “  attend”  to  my  letter ! 

Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  reconcile  this  apparent  discrepancy 
between  two  of  your  owm  statements ;  whilst  I,  waiting  for  the  proofs 
of  your  former  assertions,  remain 

Your  obedient  servant, 

>J<  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishcp,  etc. 


Dectmber  15,  1842. 


INFLUENCE  OF  CHRIST! ANITT  UPON  CIYILIZATION., 


351 


KT.  REV.  BISHOP  HUGHES’  LECTURE, 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  TABERNACLE,  ON  THURSDAY  EVENING, 
JANUARY  5th,  1843,  BEFORE  THE  CATHOLIC  LIBRARY 
SOCIETY. 

Subject  : — Influence  of  Christianity  upon  Civilization. 


[The  folio-wing  lecture  was  announced  to  be  delivered  on  December  22d,  1842, 
but  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Dubois  having  died  on  the  20th  of  December,  it  was,  in 
consequence,  postponed  until  the  6th  of  January,  1843.] 

“  Civilization”  is  a  word  in  our  lanffuaare  which  all  who  under- 

o  o 

derstand  the  language  comprehend,  but  of  which  it  might,  perhaps, 
be  difficult  to  give  a  definition  that  would  convey  an  absolute  mean¬ 
ing.  It  is,  like  so  many  other  words,  relative,  and  not  absolute. 
Every  one  knows  what  it  means  in  a  general  way,  but  there  is  no 
fixed  standard  whereby  to  determine  its  absolute  value.  It  is  un¬ 
derstood  to  express  the  condition  of  society  living  under  fixed  prin¬ 
ciples  and  laws,  in  mutual  and  social  relations  with  each  other ;  and, 
therefore,  wherever  this  exists,  there  must  be,  in  some  degree  at 
least,  civilization.  And  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  human  na¬ 
ture,  being  the  same  in  all  ages,  wherever  Christianity  has  not  pene¬ 
trated,  there  is  either  no  civilization,  or  civilization  on  the  lowest 
possible  scale.  Not  only  there,  but  wherever  Christianity  has  de¬ 
parted  from  a  land,  there  you  find  the  movement  retrograde ;  and 
mankind,  although  possessed  of  all  their  powers  of  reason,  and  all 
their  natural  faculties,  without  that  spirit  and  feeling,  relapsing,  if 
not  into,  at  least  towards,  primitive  barbarism.  We,  in  our  age,  are 
enjoying  the  blessings  of  civilization  to  a  very  large  extent  (it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  they  have  reached  their  perfection  yet ; 
nevertheless  they  are  in  very  amjile  development)  ;  and  it  is  natural 
for  us,  in  this  as  in  other  things,  to  trouble  ourselves  little  about  the 
means  by  which  mankind — society — that  moral  being — that  aggre¬ 
gate  of  human  mind  and  human  feeling — should  be  in  the  position 
of  enjoying  those  blessings.  Sometimes  we  pride  ourselves  in  their 
enjoyment,  but  seldom  inquire  how  it  was  that  these  blessings  have 
been  accumulated  and  brought  to  their  present  perfection.  If,  then, 
I  enter  on  this  subject  somewhat,  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  I  pre¬ 
sent  to  you  the  highest  value  of  Christianity.  Let  it  not  be  supposed 
that  I  would,  even  honorable  as  it  is  to  revelation,  make  this  the 
primary,  or  supreme,  end  of  its  communication  to  man.  No.  It 
has  two  aspects.  One  is  all  divine,  looking  to  God.  One,  contem- 


352 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  LECTURE. 


plating  man,  not  in  liis  temporal  existence,  but  in  bis  eternal  state 
of  being.  And  that  seems  to  be  the  direct  object  of  Christianity. 
But  it  is  a  remarkable  thing,  as  observed  by  Montesquieu  in  his 
“  Spirit  of  Laws,”  and  an  admirable  thing,  that  religion,  which  ap¬ 
pears  to  have  been  intended  exclusively  for  our  happiness  in  a  future 
life,  is  also  to  serve  for  the  support  of  our  felicity  in  the  present. 
And  it  is  that  indirect  etfect,  that  temporal  effect,  that  social  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  Christian  religion,  of  which  I  treat ;  not  as  its  primary, 
but  as  its  secondary,  yet  exceedingly  important,  result.  Our  fore¬ 
fathers,  having  all  the  mind  naturally  that  we  have,  having  all  the 
aftection  that  we  have,  having  even  a  larger  portion  of  physical  power 
of  endurance  and  exertion,  were  barbarians  notwithstanding ;  and 
wherever  you  can  trace  the  line,  that  is  the  verge  of  Christianity  ; 
understand  and  know  that  beyond  that  is  barbarism.  If,  then,  I 
speak  of  the  subject  selected,  it  is  not,  knowing  as  I  do  the  nature 
of  my  own  function,  which  is  to  speak  to  men  of  Heaven,  and  of 
God  and  of  Eternity,  and  of  the  sacred  and  mysterious  things  of  that 
religion,  it  is  not  that  I  would  raise  these  mere  temporal  considera¬ 
tions  to  an  equality  of  appreciation.  But  it  is  that  even  as  regards 
that  which  constitute  the  cement  and  the  strength  and  the  ornament 
of  social  life,  I  should  also  point  out  to  you  that  it  is  to  the  Great 
Author  of  our  redemption  that  we  are  indebted  for  all.  Christi¬ 
anity  on  the  other  hand  is  itself,  so  far  as  it  is  exemplified  in  the 
life  of  its  Divine  Author,  perfect  as  its  source.  Then,  communicated 
to  man,  it  is  a  principle  planted  in  the  heart — it  is  a  conviction — a 
religious  conviction — it  is  a  sentiment — it  is  in  itself,  if  I  might  so 
speak,  the  opposite  of  all  that  is  physical  or  all  that  constitutes 
physical  power.  It  is  not  intended  by  its  Divine  Author  (for  if  it 
were  it  would  have  accomplished  its  purpose)  to  destroy  absolutely 
the  free  will  of  man,  so  as  to  change  him.  by  its  divine  influence 
against  his  will  into  a  perfect  being.  But  it  is  a  sentiment  by  which, 
if  a  man  guide  himself,  he  will  be  as  perfect  as  it  is  possible  for  his 
nature  to  be.  If,  then,  Christianity,  in  its  descent  down  to  us,  side  by 
side,  and  intimately  connected  and  interwoven  with  the  progress  of 
social  life,  has  not  made*  individuals  and  families  and  communities 
and  nations  happy,  it  is  because  it  has  had  to  operate  on  a  nature 
that  is  evil.  Man  is  naturally  evil.  It  points  out  to  him  the  way 
of  goodness ;  but  it  does  not  compel  him  by  either  moral  or  invin¬ 
cible  coercion  of  any  kind  to  embrace  it.  This  remark  is  exceed¬ 
ingly  important  in  reference  to  the  view  of  the  subject  which  I  am 
about  to  take.  Because,  as  errors  on  this  point  are  often  to  be  met 
with  in  our  age,  when  there  is  so  much  to  be  read,  and  on  account 
of  the  quantity,  so  superficially  too,  it  is  important  for  us  to  make 
that  distinction ;  and  instead  of  holding  Christianity  or  Religion  or 
the  Church  responsible  for  the  evil  that  has  occurred,  rather  to 
ascribe  that  evil  to  its  proper  source,  and  understand  that  the  good 
which  has  resulted  came  from  the  religion,  whilst  the  evil  itself  came 
from  the  corrupt  and  depraved  heart  of  man,  on  whom  that  religion 
could  make  no  impression.  This,  then,  is  an  important  distinction 


INFLUENCE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  UPON  CIVILIZATION. 


353 


to  be  made.  Foi*  here,  in  speaking  of  past  ages,  or  speaking  of  the 
forms,  the  phases,  at  diiferent  times  and  in  ditferent  countries,  pre¬ 
sented  to  our  contemplation  by  social  life,  it  is  customary  in  many 
quarters  to  charge  religion,  the  only  remedy  for  the  evil  of  these 
times,  as  if  it  were  responsible  for  the  evils  it  could  not  prevent ! 
And  Ave  never  can  appreciate  the  adA-antages  of  religion  m  the  im¬ 
provement  of  the  social  condition — the  correction  of  the  passions  of 
the  human  heart — the  amelioration  of  the  social  institutions,  laws, 
usages,  and  manners,  unless  we  make  that  distinction  and  draAV  the 
line  broadly  between  Avhat  religion  recommended  and  Avhat  it  has 
been  able  to  accomplish,  and  that  Avhich  it  recommended,  but  Avhich 
men  in  the  stubbornness  of  their  pride  and  obduracy  of  their  hearty 
refused  to  perform.  It  is  singularly  remarkable  that  the  Author  of 
our  religion,  neither  in  his  public  preaching  during  his  brief  minis¬ 
try  on  earth,  nor  in  the  writings  of  his  Apostles — left  by  inspiration 
after  his  ascension — has  so  much  as  one  AAmrd  in  reference  to  the 
improvement  Avhich  should  occur  in  the  Avorld  by  virtue  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  he  had  promulgated.  There  is  not  a  Avord  about  the  evils 
Avhich  existed,  and  which  penetrated  into  all  society  at  the  time  He 
lived  on  our  earth.  There  is  not  a  AVord  of  the  iniquities  prcA^ailing, 
not  a  Avord  of  recommendation  to  his  Apostles  to  OA^erturn  these 
gOA^eruments,  even  if  they  had  the  poAver  ;  not  a  promise  that  they 
should  become  rich,  or  happy,  or  poAverful,  in  a  Avorldly  point  of 
A’iew ;  but  on  the  contrary,  if  there  be  a  prediction  shadoAved  forth 
at  all,  it  is  that  they  should  be  the  especial  victims  of  the  world’s 
persecution.  Nevertheless,  it  Avould  be  impossible  even  then,  for  a 
mind  capable  of  appreciating  on  this  point  of  vieAV  the  effects  of  his 
doctrines,  not  to  see  that  in  the  principles  of  justice,  the  principles 
of  truth,  the  principles  of  fraternity,  the  principles  of  holiness,  Avhich 
his  doctrines  embodied,  there  Avas  enough  to  give  sure  promise  that 
if  these  doctrines  ever  took  root  in  the  world,  they  must  of  them¬ 
selves  and  of  necessity,  as  a  little  leaven,  gradually  leaven  the  Avhole 
mass.  It  is  in  the  first  promulgation  of  these  doctrintis  that  you  see 
the  germ  of  civilization.  This  A\"as  not,  so  far  as  the  text  goes,  so 
far  as  the  fact  speaks,  the  intention  for  which  the  doctrine  Avas  itself 
spread  abroad,  but  it  was  of  necessity  to  be  its  effect.  Because  for 
the  first  time  He  conferred  honor  on  human  nature,  and  He  taught 
his  disciples  to  love  their  .neighbor  as  themselves.  He  called  them 
once  “  servants,”  bht  afterwards  He  called  them  “  brethren  and 
after  all,  if  you  Avill  examine  and  trace  to  its  primitive  origin  the 
Avhole  amelioration  of  the  social  condition,  from  the  time  that  He  pro¬ 
claimed  his  doctrine  on  the  earth,  you  will  not  find  this  so  much  in 
any  specific  text  as  in  the  great  conviction  of  the  fundamental  doc¬ 
trine  of  his  OAvn  person  and  of  his  own  nature.  Cast  your  eyes 
abroad  over  all  the  nations  of  Avhom  Ave  have  any  knoAvledge  from 
antiquity,  and  you  Avill  find  man,  as  to  his  nature,  despised.  You  will 
find,  turning  over  the  pages  of  the  Persian,  Egyptian,  and  Grecian 
historian,  that  man  in  himself  Avas  esteemed  of  no  value,  that  the 
line  Avas  almost  invisible  between  him  in  whom  was  concentrated 
23 


354 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES’  LECTURE. 


absolute  poAver,  whicli  he  exercised  as  tyrants  always  will,  and  the 
rest  of  the  people — they  were  groaning  beneath  his  iron  sceptre ; 
that  there  was  but  one  monarch,  and  the  rest  slaves  of  various 
grades  and  different  conditions.  If  you  look,  then,  at  the  great 
theatre  of  Roman  domination,  you  Avill  find  that  in  Rome,  Avith  all 
its  pretended  civilization,  the  same  feature  jirevailed.  The  citizens 
of  Rome,  Avhen  we  read  and  read  hastily,  Ave  suppose  to  have  been 
pretty  much  like  our  OAvn  citizens.  But  there  can  be  no  conception 
more  erroneous  than  this.  The  Roman  citizen  Avas  as  one  perhaps  to 
ten  thousand;  and  the  plebeian  race,  and  above  all  the  slaves,  Avere  as 
persons  of  no  value;  because  they  were  not  citizens,  and  because  not 
^aAung  that  special  privilege,  their  nature,  although  like  that  of  the 
others,  stamped  AAuth  the  image  of  God,  Avas  not  appreciated.  There 
Avas  nothing  to  give  them  value.  And  the  great  idea  of  the  great 
lever  Avdiich  Christianity  presented  for  the  eleA^ation  of  the  human 
race,  aagts  the  doctrine  that  the  Divine  Son  became  man,  and  in  be¬ 
coming  man  elevated  human  nature  by  its  union  with  the  divine 
nature  in  the  same  person '  This  is  the  origin ;  and  if  you  start 
from  the  fountain  and  behold  these  waters  of  regeneration  bursting 
forth  from  their  primitive  source,  and  watch  them  as  they  meandered 
and  divided,  now  into  one  stream  of  benevolence,  now  into  another, 
noAV  into  the  improA^ement  of  legislation,  now  into  the  mitigation  of 
the  civil  condition  of  the  slaAm,  and  as  they  passed  from  nation  to 
nation,  and  age  to  age,  you  will  see  in  all  their  branches  this  power 
and  efficacy,  because  God  had  ennobled  humanity  by  the  “Word” 
being  “  made  Flesh  and  dwelling  amongst  men.” 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  lesson  which  first  united  the 
disciples  together  Avas  a  lesson  of  love  and  of  fraternity.  And  it  no 
doubt  entered  into  the  providence  of  God  that  that  Avhich  Avas  a 
doctrine  and  an  affection  should  become,  through  the  manner  of  its 
development,  a  standard  of  imitation  to  spread  from  the  centre  to 
the  circumference  of  the  world.  The  first  lesson  of  equality,  prac¬ 
tical  equality,  we  can  trace  to  the  catacombs  of  Rome,  where  those 
who  professed  Christianity  Avere  obliged  to  hide  themselves  from 
Pagan  persecution.  You  will  behold  there  the  bishop  of  that  city, 
and  the  noble  senator,  and  the  freedman,  and  the  slave — all,  as 
brethren,  assembled  around  the  altar  on  which  they  offered  sacrifice 
to  their  God,  and  near  the  sepulchre  Ayhich  was  to  contain  their 
consecrated  remains.  The  first  lesson  was  oi^e  of  suffering  and 
humility ;  and  Avhilst  the  Christian  Church  Avas  in  this  situation  of 
suffering,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  she,  either  by  her  external 
development  of  the  moral  principle  Avith  which  God  has  inspired 
her,  or  by  any  other  influence,  could  exercise  any  poAver  over  the 
usages  which  then  prevailed.  Nevertheless,  if  you  Avatch  the 
progress  of  Roman  legislation,  you  will  find  that  even  before  the 
empire  professed  the  Christian  name  the  harsh  spirit  of  that 
legislation  was  mitigated.  Many  of  its  stern  and  cruel  features 
were  changed  for  others  of  greater  mildness ;  and  there  is  strong 
reason  to  belie\  e  that  the  reflection  of  the  example  and  usages  of 


IITFLUENCE  OF  CHElSTIASriTT  UPON  CIVILIZATION. 


355 


the  obscure  and  piTsecuted  Christians  was  shed  even  on  the  mind 
and  heart  of  him  who  wielded  the  imperial  sceptre.  Until  then  the 
slave,  under  Roman  civilization,  had  no  protection  of  any  kind. 
Until  then  the  slave  belonged  to  his  master  as  the  ox  belonged  ; 
even  the  atti'ibute  of  humanity  was  denied  him;  he  was  called  a 
thing — “  res  ” — and  not  a  man.  Ilis  master  ’could  kill  and  destroy 
him  at  his  pleasure ;  and  it  is  known  that  the  slaves,  even  whilst  at 
labor,  were  bound  with  chains  of  iron,  and  at  night  were  compelled 
to  retire  to  the  caverns  of  the  earth,  with  only  an  opening  as  a  me¬ 
dium  of  breathing  the  air  of  heaven.  W e  know  that,  in  his  caprice, 
the  master  sent  one  of  his  slaves  to  be  devoured  alive  by  the  fishes 
in  his  pond,  for  no  reason  except  that,  in  awkwardly  attending  the 
banquet,  he  allowed  a  crystal  vase  to  fall  and  be  broken.  We  know 
another  instance,  in  which  four  hundred  slaves  were  directed  to  be 
taken  between  tiles’of  soldiers  and  massacred — for  what  crime  think 
ye?  None,  but  that  their  master  had  been  assassinated,  and  they 
Avould  not  tell  by  whom  ;  possibly  because  they  could  not !  But  it 
was  to  be  presumed  that  it  could  not  have  occurred  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  slaves,  and  therefore  the  slaves  were  to  forfeit 
their  lives  to  that  inconsiderate  and  barbarian  law.  Now  we  find 
the  first  modification  of  that  law  under  the  subsequent  emperors. 
But  if  such  was  the  manner  in  which  the  slaves  were  treated,  let  us 
see  what  was  the  manner  in  Avhich  that  first  element  of  social  exist¬ 
ence,  the  family,  ivas  regulated.  A  family  is  in  itself  a  State  ;  it  is 
a  corporation  in  Avhich  there  is  form,  and  dominion,  and  order;  and 
the  Christian  family  presents  a  spectacle  Avhich  Avould  have  aston¬ 
ished  the  ancients,  Avho  could  not  have  admitted  the  possibility  of 
the  existence  of  such  a  perfect  organization  in  domestic  life.  The 
Roman  family  was  not  a  natural  family.  If  ivas  a  civil  one,  regu¬ 
lated  by  the  lav^ ;  and  under  that  laiv  the  father  OAvned  his  children 
just  as  he  did  his  slaAms.  He  could  kill  them  both.  The  mother 
could  do  so  at  their  birth,  Avithout  any  crime  against  the  State  ;  or 
the  father,  at  any  subsequent  period  ;  he  could  sell  them,  or  dispose 
of  them  as  he  pleased.  If  you  can  imagine,  then,  such  a  family,  and 
an  aggregate  of  such  families,  you  Avill  have  some  idea  of  that  free 
Rome,  so-called,  Avhere  the  laAV  protected  the  father,  and  secured 
this  power  to  him,  Avhich  he  might  exercise  as  arbitrarily  as  he 
thought  jAi’oper,  so  long  as  he  lived.  The  child  was  incapable  of 
acquiring  anything.  All  that  he  acquired  belonged  not  to  him,  for 
he  belonged  not  to  himself,  but  to  his  father.  And  Avhen  death  re¬ 
moved  that  father,  then  he  himself  passed,  by  a  sudden  transition, 
from  the  condition  of  a  slave  to  that  of  the  tyrant  under  whom  he 
had  previously  lAed.  Would  you  speak  of  that  so  immediately 
connected  Avith  the  family — the  marriage  bond  ?  You  Avill  find  that 
the  wife  was  scarcely  the  companion  of  the  husband.  She  was,  it  is 
true,  not  called  a  slave ;  she  was  called  a  wife.  But  she  Avas,  both 
on  account  of  her.  sex  and  on  that  of  relation,  a  being  in  this  condi¬ 
tion  of  society,  having  no  rights  from  the  hour  of  her  birth  until  she 
went  to  her  grave.  She  could  not  bequeath  to  her  child  anything ; 


S56 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’  LECTURE. 


no,  not  even  a  token  of  affection,  without  permission.  During  her 
minority  she  belonged  to  her  father,  and  after  her  marriage  she  be¬ 
longed  to  her  husband.  And  the  consequences  of  this,  in  the  grow¬ 
ing  depravity  of  that  corrupt  community,  were  such  as  respect  for 
the  modesty  and  the  feeling  which,  thanks  to  Christianity,  exist  in 
your  bosoms,  prevents’  me  from  describing  in  any  way. 

After  this  period,  then,  of  which  this  is  but  a  faint  outline,  you 
find  a  new  order  of  things  introduced  when  Constantine  professes 
the  Christian  religion,  and  in  a  very  brief  period  you  find  the  first 
law  enacted  towards  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves ;  laws  also 
enacted  for  the  relief  of  the  poor ;  and  the  first  external  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  the  feelings  and  of  the  principles  which  Christianity  had 
implanted  in  the  heart,  and  which  had  exhibited  no  direct  power 
before.  Then  succeeds  rapidly — for  in  a  matter  of  this  kind  I  must 
pass  very  cursorily — the  decline  of  that  empire  and  that  people  so 
fond  of  blood,  especially  in  this  last  and  most  corrupt  stage ;  that 
people,  who  could  amiise  the  multitudes  in  the  amphitheatres  with 
the  spectacle  of  Christians  devoured  by  the  lions  of  Africa ;  that 
people,  who  could  season  their  banquets  with  the  agonies  of  naked 
gladiators  piercing  each  other’s  breasts ;  that  period  of  blood  and 
voluptuousness — the  bloody  star  of  their  dominion  now  set  for  ever. 
Then  came  in  a  new  order.  Those  hordes  from  the  north  of  Europe 
and  Asia — the  Huns,  Goths  and  Vandals — rushed  upon  the  empire 
as  a  deluge,  as  if  the  cataracts  of  heaven  had  been  again  opened, 
and  the  great  fountains  of  the  earth  had  burst  forth  afresh  ;  one  tide 
rising  above  its  fellow,  and  rolling  onward  as  if  to  blot  out  the 
bloody  foot-prints  of  that  iron-hearted  race,  who  had  made  the  earth 
groan  beneath  the  weight  of  their  violence  and  crime.  (Loud  ap¬ 
plause.)  Tliese  invaders  were  not  Christians.  They  came,  not 
knowing:  their  own  mission,  but  with  a  kind  of  instinct  in  their 
hearts — a  kind  of  dim  idea  that  God  had  destined  them  to  become 
the  scourge  of  that  emihre  ;  so  much  so  that  Attila,  who  boasted 
that  “  where  the  hoof  of  his  steed  once  struck  the  earth,  the  grass 
never  grew  again,”  boasted  also  that  he  was  the  “  Scourge  of  God.” 
But  he  was  only  one  of  a  series  who  came,  one  after  another,  de¬ 
stroying  everything  that  had  resulted  from  the  operation  of  the 
Roman  mind,  and  the  progress  of  Roman  civilization.  Yet  whilst 
those  torrents  of  barbarism  spread  over  the  empire,  religion  and  her 
ministers  were  also  there ;  and  the  ship  of  the  Church,  mounting  on 
these  waves,  with  its  crew  inspired  by  the  promises  of  their  glorified 
Master,  was  now  employed  in  gathering,  here  and  there,  the  frag¬ 
ments  of  literature,  science,  and  the  arts  of  civilization  which  floated 
on  the  surface,  and  would  otherwise  have  perished  utterly  and  for 
ever.  (Applause .)  This  was  their  occupation.  The  very  form  in 
which  God  had  appointed  that  his  Church  should  develop  itself, 
became,  in  the  goodness  of  his  providence,  the  means  of  preserving 
these  benefits  to  future  ages.  He,  instilling  his  doctrines  into  the 
simple-hearted  followers  who  surrounded  him,  selected  twelve,  and 
of  them  he  chose  one;  and  thus  constituted  a  society,  organized 


INFLUENCE  OF  CnEISTIANITY  UFON  CIVILIZATION.  851 

witli  its  own  peculiar  government  and  powers  of  government  within 
itself.  You  cannot  read  the  history  of  those'  ages  without  seeing 
how  intimately  the  Church  and  State  were  blended  together ;  and 
you  cannot,  perhaps,  refrain  from  expressing  your  indignation  at 
the  discovery.  You  may  not  have  understood  the  explanation  of 
this  fact.  Christianity  and  the  Church  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
State.  Their  mission  is  from  heaven  to  man.  Men  believe  it,  and 
its  end  again  is  heaven.  So  that  if  the  Pope — the  first  bishop  of 
the  Church  ;  the  successor  of  him  who  was  taken  from  the  twelve, 
and  appointed  one  to  whom  was  given  power  not  given  to  others — 
if  he  ])ecomes  an  important  personage  in  secular  or  political  matters, 
in  after  times,  do  not  suppose  that  he  is  so  by  virtue  of  any  warrant 
he  received  from  his  Divine  Master.  His  office  and  these  things 
are,  in  themselves,  utterly  separate. 

“  IIow  did  it  occur  then,”  it  will  be  asked,  “  that  strange  union  of 
Church  and  State — that  intertwining  of  the  fibres  of  the  one  with 
the  other,  so  that  it  is  almost  impossible,  by  reading  history,  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  the  limits,  and  in  fact  that  it  occasioned  perpetual  strug¬ 
gles  of  the  one  power  against  the  other,  in  'which  each  had  its  own 
mode  of  warffire,  appropriate  to  its  own  nature  and  character  ?”  It 
is  easy  to  explain  all  this.  When  civilization  was  destroyed  ;  when 
the  lyoman  provinces  were  pillaged  by  a  new  and  barbarous  race, 
who  refused  to  adopt  any  of  the  manners  of  the  people  whom  they 
had  subdued  and  annihilated,  and  who  would  not  stoop  to  learn 
wisdom  from  the  conquered ;  in  a  word,  when  men  without  culti¬ 
vation,  without  literature  or  laws,  occupied  that  empire,  was  it  not 
a  great  mercy  that  in  that  ship  of  the  Church,  which  rode  triumph¬ 
antly  on  the  wave  of  barbarism,  there  shonld  have  been  found  men 
capable  of  teaching  these  barbarians  ?  This  was  the  origin  of  the 
union  of  Church  and  State.  The  very  nature  of  the  office  sustained 
by  the  ministers  of  religion  kept  them  in  contact  with  mankind. 
What  are  they  sent  for  but  to  convert  the  heart ;  to  subdue  the 
natural  ferocity  of  men  ;  to  make  them  love  each  other  ?  How,  then, 
could  they  abstain  from  intercourse  witli  mankind  ?  and  how  could 
they  have  that  intercourse  without  imparting  some  of  that  light  to 
the  taper  of  him  who  was  in  darkness,  and  came  within  the  reach 
of  their  illuminating  influence?  When  the  whole  social  fabric  was 
broken  down,  what  remained  to  be  done,  except  that  these  men 
should  exert  themselves  in  gathering  up  and  restoring  all  the  frag¬ 
ments  of  what  Avas  valuable ;  in  re-constructing  the  social  edifice, 
and  regenerating  the  affections  and  enlightening  the  minds  of  the 
new  nation  springing  into  existence  ?  It  was  thus  that  the  early 
ministers  of  the  Church  laid  the  enduring  foundations  of  the  modern 
and  boasted  civilization. 

If  you  find,  then,  that  the  Church  came  to  have  influence  in  the 
State,  do  not  impute  it  to  the  ambition  of  her  ministers,  although  it 
is  proper  to  acknowledge  that  even  these  men,  high  and  holy  as 
was  their  calling,  would  not  be  in  all  cases  above  the  influence  of 
that  feeling  more  than  other  men.  They  were  men ;  aad  as  men 


358 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’  LECTURE. 


they  would  he  operated  on,  more  or  less,  by  the  ordinary,  feelings 
to  -vA'liich  our  nature  is  subject.  But  examine  the  page  of  history, 
and  you  will  find  that  if  they  had  influence — if  they  began  to  be 
arbitrators,  and  from  that  to  be,  as  it  was  natural,  magistrates  and 
judges  of  the  peace — it  was  because  they  had  gained  the  confidence 
of  the  people  by  whom  they  were  surrounded ;  because  their  mis¬ 
sion  and  character  inspired  those  people  with  respect,  and  led  them 
to  confide  in  their  ability  and  will  to  render  that  justice  which  they 
might  have  elsewhere  sought  in  vain.  And  so  general  was  the  feel¬ 
ing  of  popular  confidence  and  desire  to  seek  the  counsel  and  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  Church,  that  her  ministers  were  often  obliged  to  devote 
much  of  their  time  to  these  works.  In  the  writings  of  St.  Augus¬ 
tine  we  find  that  Avhen  he  wished  to  call  on  St.  Ambrose,  he  found 
him  “so  surrounded  by  clients  that  it  Avas  difficult  to  gain  an  au¬ 
dience.”  And  at  that  time  and  subsequently,  also,  but  especially  at 
that  period  Avhen  all  the  regular  organization  of  government  Avas 
dissolved,  the  Christians  had  in  their  minds  that  admonition  of  St. 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians  Avhen  he  seemed  to  have  been  scandalized  at 
them  for  referring  their  disputes  to  the  Pagan  judges,  and  exhorted 
them  to  refer  them  to  some  of  their  oaaui  communion. 

They  applied  that  admonition,  and  because  these  ministers  of  re¬ 
ligion  in  the  constitution  of  society  Avere  the  persons  to  whom  the 
people  Avould  naturally  flock,  as  men  not  having  families  of  their  oAvn — 
no  interest  to  interfere  AAuth  their  pursuit  of  holy  things — they  natu¬ 
rally  became  the  umpires  and  judges,  the  duties  of  Avhich  offices  they 
Avere  Avell  fitted  to  discharge  with  propriety,  from  their  superior 
learning,  and  their  vastly  superior  integrity.  (Loud  applause.)  We 
know  that  historians,  and  even  ecclesiastical  historians,  boast  of  the 
conduct  of  Constantine  Avhen  he  assisted  at  the  great  Council  of 
Nice  Avith  the  bishops,  and  though  emperor  of  the  Avorld,  as  might 
be  said,  yet  Avas  so  humble  that  he  would  not  alloAV  himself  to  ex¬ 
press  an  opinion  in  the  matter.  But  in  the  final  issue  it  could  not 
but  turn  out  a  misfortune  that  the  emperor  was  present  on  such  an 
occasion,  and  we  accordingly  find  that  he  who  Avas  so  humble  and 
respectful  to  the  ministers  of  religion,  Iwed  long  enough  so  to  ap¬ 
preciate  his  own  power  in  relation  to  the  Church  as  in  the  contro- 
A'ersies  betAveen  the  orthodox  and  the  Arians  to  take  upon  himself 
the  decision  of  the  question,  without  the  slightest  hesitation,  and 
banished  into  exile  such  of  the  bishops  as  refused  to  'acquiesce. 
From  that  time  forward  if  you  find  the  bishops  entering  more  or 
less  into  the  counsels  of  the  king  or  of  the  State,  it  is  because  the 
latter  were  ignorant,  and  the  bishops  enlightened.  It  Avas  because 
the  State  officials  wished  to  borroAV  from  the  light  of  the  bishop,  as 
he,  from  his  character,  position  and  bearing  had  manifested  that 
love  of  human  nature  AvhLh  Avas  noAV  prized,  not  by  any  earthly 
consideration,  but  by  its  equiv.xlent  of  value  in  the  idea  that  man 
had  been  raised  by  the  Incarnation  for  the  enjoyment  of  his  primi¬ 
tive  destiny.  (Applause.) 

Going  on,  you  Avill  come  to  the  origin  of  monastic  institutions. 


INTHTENCE  OP  CHRISTIANITT  T7PON  CIVILIZATION. 


35d 


And  it  has  been  quite  customary  to  look  on  them  as  rather  indica¬ 
tions  of  barbarism,  or  a  low  state  of  civilization.  It  would  not  be¬ 
come  me,  on  an  occasion  like  this,  to  enter  into  any  question  con¬ 
nected  with  the  merits  of  these  religious  institutions  in  a  religious 
point  of  view.  That  is  not  appropriate  for  the  plan  or  occasion,  and 
I  will  leave  it  aside.  But  I  will  view  them  in  connection  with  the 
times  and  the  progress  of  society.  I  find  in  them  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  agencies  which  God  employed  for  extending  the  bless¬ 
ings  of  civilization,  and  giving  form  and  permanence  to  these  crude 
materials  for  modern  nations  which  were  then  strewn  around. 
How  was  this  ?  The  Roman  empire  being  in  the  state  I  have  de¬ 
scribed — overrun  with  northern  barbarians,  who  brought  with  them 
all  their  habits  of  plunder,  dislike  of  labor,  and  unspeakable  con- 
tenqit  for  tlie  occupation  of  letters  as  one  only  fitted  for  the  coward 
— how  were  they  brought  into  that  condition  in  which  all  the  min¬ 
gled  interests  of  a  large  community  could  be  so  balanced  and 
arranged  as  to  allow  freedom  to  each,  and  equal  rights  to  all.  How 
was  this  to  be  accom^ilished ?  How  was  it,  in  fact,  done?  I 
answer,  it  was  eflbcted  in  a  great  measure  by  the  institution  of 
monastic  orders. 

I  find,  in  reading  history,  especially  that  of  the  Church,  that  these 
institutions  had  amongst  their  objects  the  preservation  of  ancient 
manuscripts  which  would  otherwise  have  perished.  Their  origin 
was  in  the  desire  of  their  founders  to  retire  from  the  evils  of  the 
world,  to  save  their  own  souls,  and  serve  their  God  in  solitude. 
There,  then,  you  see  the  first  organization  of  civilized  life,  in  the 
constitution  of  a  religious  community.  The  very  word  “  commu¬ 
nity”  was  unknown  before,  and  had  its  origin  in  those  institutions. 
Admirable  schools  of  wisdom  and  justice,  and  freedom  too! — the 
essence  of  whose  constitution  and  government  has  been  infused  into 
the  best  civil  organizations  of  modern  times !  (Loud  applause.) 
The  time  of  the  monks  was  divided  in  attention  to  rest,  prayer, 
study,  and  labor.  And  if  in  the  sequel  they  became  wealthy,  and 
seem  to  have  occupied  a  larger  space  than  they  ought  have  occu¬ 
pied,  let  not  that,  any  more  than  their  character  and  influence,  be 
misunderstood.  In  their  origin  they  selected  locations  where  land 
was  of  no  value,  because  inhabitants  were  wanting  and  the  soil  was 
not  prized.  They  ordinarily  selected  retired  places — the  wilderness, 
far  remote  from  the  usual  haunts  of  men — but  they  were  industri¬ 
ous  ;  their  habits  were  religiously  frugal ;  their  clothing  was  of  the 
Coarsest  texture ;  they  lived  a  perpetual  life,  never  dying,  but  as  a 
body  with  its  particles  always  supplied  m  proportion  to  the  waste ; 
having  no  helpless  childhood,  nor  feeble  youth,  nor  decrepid  age  in 
their  institution;  they,  by  their  own  continual  industry,  and  the 
gradual  increase  through  ages  in  the  value  of  the  lands  on  which 
they  had  settled,  became,  without  its  being  at  the  expense  of  any 
human  being  on  the  earth,  wealthy  and  influential.  (Long  continued 
applause.)  These,  untrodden,  wild  and  barren  mountains,  which 
they  found  forsaken  and  forbidding,  their  patient  toil  converted 


860 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  LECTURE. 


into  smiling  gardens,  which  thus  became  the  first  “  model-farms  ” 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  agricultural  regions  of  Europe.  The 
monks  were  now  the  pioneers  of  successful  agriculture.  They 
taught  it ;  they  practiced  it  with  their  own  hands  ;  it  was,  in  part, 
their  occupation.  And  not  in  agriculture  alone — which  is,  we  may 
remember,  the  first  element  of  civilized  social  life — but  in  science 
and  literature,  they  were  the  instructors  of  their  fellow-men. 
Whilst  some  of  their  number  tilled  the  ground,  others  taught,  and 
others  studied.  And  in  their  constitutions  we  find  express  pro¬ 
visions  made  for  the  transcribing  of  the  ancient  documents  which 
had  been  preserved,  and  books  of  a  peculiarly  unpleasant  kind  were 
reserved  for  copying  in  penitential  times,  such  as  Lent ;  for  as  yet 
the  world  had  no  printing-press.  These  were  the  men  who  pre¬ 
served  and  handed  down  to  future  ages  the  hoarded  treasures  of  the 
past,  which,  but  for  their  patient,  denying  toil,  would  have  been 
irrecoverably  lost.  Take  the  Benedictine  order  alone,  which  existed 
for  some  fourteen  hundred  years,  and  you  see  that  it  has  been  em¬ 
ployed,  during  the  whole  night  of  barbarism,  in  gathering  up  the 
fragments  of  the  ancient  writers  and  the  fathers.  All,  in  fact,  that 
M'B  know  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and  the  perished  empires  of  the  past, 
has  been  derived  from  these  despised  monks.  They  were  the  men 
who  built  the  bridge — the  only  bridge  connecting  ancient  with 
modern  civilization.  And  whilst  we,  in  our  ingratitude,  feasting  on 
the  labors  of  their  toilsome  hours,  call  them  “lazy  monks,”  we 
ought  to  know  that  they  were  the  literary  carriers  of  all  the  knowl¬ 
edge  that  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  elder  days  of  the  world. 
(Immense  applause.) 

But  I  perceive  that  I.  should  waste  the  whole  of  the  time  appro¬ 
priate  for  a  lecture,  if  I  were  to  follow  out  any  single  idea  which 
occurs  to  me  on  a  subject  like  the  present.  I  shall,  therefore,  be  ob¬ 
liged  to  hurry  on,  in  order  to  give  some  hasty  glances  at  a  general 
view  of  a  topic  which  covers  such  a  vast  space  of  time  and  of  locality. 

Gradually  from  this  period  you  find  these  nations,  in  their  strug¬ 
gle  against  the  mild  and  gentle  influence  of  Christianity,  themselves 
opposing  or  slowly  yielding  to  it,  following  out  in  their  social  forms 
the  primitive  instinct  of  the  races  from  whom  they  were  descended. 
Thus  you  find  in  the  first  legislation  that  the  life  of  an  ancient  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  empire  was  not  worth  so  much  as  that  of  one  of  the 
invaders ;  and  again,  in  that  strange  compounding  for  injuries  in¬ 
flicted,  that  the  price  of  a  first  finger  was  nearly  as  much  as  that  of 
a  limb,  because  they  wanted  it  to  pull  the  bow-string,  and  send  the 
arrow  to  the  foeman’s  heart.  It  is  only  by  thus  examining  the  con¬ 
dition  of  society,  at  that  jreriod,  that  you  learn  how  near  the  state 
of  infancy  it  was,  how  feeble  then  the  dawn  of  the  general  mind. 

Tlien,  after  the  decline  and  fall  of  that  empire,  we  enter  on  the 
“  middle,”  or,  as  they  are  sometimes  called,  the  “  dark  ages ;”  not  so 
muc'h  because  exclusively  dark  in  themselves  as  because  we  our¬ 
selves  are  very  much  in  the  dark  respecting  them,  and  in  the  brevity 
of  human  life  do  not  deem  the  toil  of  research  to  be  compensated 


INFLUENCE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  UPON  CIVILIZATION., 


361 


by  any  advantageous  return.  Now  these  ages  are,  to  a  certain  ex¬ 
tent,  of  this  description  unquestionably ;  but,  in  the  mean  time, 
through  these  ages  you  observe  the  powerful  workings  out  of  that 
great  idea  which  God  had  made  known  through  his  Divine  Son, 
viz.,  the  'worth  of  human  natufe.  Then  was  the  time  of  the  found¬ 
ing  of  all  these  charitable  institutions  for  the  aid  or  relief  of  human¬ 
ity.  Then  was  the  period  of  Christian  heroism — of  men  and  women 
dedicating  themselves  to  the  suflering  and  the  poor ;  the  poor  who 
were  despised  under  ancient  civilization,  and  the  poor  who  are  un¬ 
happily  yet  despised.  Then  it  was  that  charity  made  her  dwelling 
with  men ;  and  recollect  that  charity  is  like  a  new  sense,  it  is  as  if 
God  has  given  a  new  sense,  but  a  divine  one,  to  the  human  mind ; 
charity,  the  whole  of  which  is  the  gift  of  the  Christian  religion ; 
that  charity  which  consists  in  loving  God,  and  men  for  God’s  sake ; 
because  Christ  the  Ivedeemer  loved  man,  and  laid  down  his  life  for 
for  him !  Then  it  was  that  men  pledged  themselves  by  a  solemn 
vow  ;  so  noble  and  disinterested  was  their  heroism,  that  they  crossed 
the  deep,  and  periled  life  and  all  they  had,  to  save  a  human  being 
who,  once  baptized  into  Christianity,  might  still  fall  into  apostacy 
and  be  lost.  Then  was  the  period  when  those  institutions  of  charity, 
those  hospitals  for  the  relief — now  of  one,  now  of  another  form  of 
human  suffering — were  founded.  So  ample  were  the  provisions 
thus  made,  that  I  might  ask  you  to  set  the  imagination  to  work,  and 
then  write  down  in  a  catalogue  all  the  misfortunes  and  calamities  of 
a  moral  or  physical  description  to  which  man,  as  a  man,  can  be  sub¬ 
ject,  and  present  it  to  me,  and  I  will  show  you  an  institution  of 
generous  men,  and  generous  women,  taking  leave  of  the  pleasures 
of  the  world,  and,  with  delight,  consecrating  themselves  to  the 
alleviation  of  each  !  This  is  the  nature  and  power  of  the  feeling 
which  pervades  them. 

We  also  find,  at  the  same  period,  those  crusades  which  have 
occupied  so  much  of  the  attention  of  the  historian  and  the  student 
of  human  progress.  By  the  superficial  critics  of  modern  times  the 
motives  of  the  crusaders  have  been  censured,  and  the  influence 
which  they  exercised  on  civilization  denied  altogether,  or  immensely 
underrated.  These  writers  exhibit  to  their  readers  only  their  views 
of  what  they  deem  the  absurdity  of  rousing  whole  nations  into  en¬ 
thusiastic  determination  to  rescue  a  fiir  city  of  the  earth  from  the 
hands  of  the  infidel.  But  such  historians  know  little  of  what  was 
accomplished  by  those  chivalrous  crusaders.  They  cannot  see  that 
by  their  successful  invasion  of  the  Mohammedan  empire  they  checked 
the  career  of  the  followers  of  the  false  prophet,  and  prevented  the 
subjugation  of  the  whole  western  portion  of  Euro{)e  to  their  do¬ 
minion.  I  enter  not  now  at  all  into  a  discussion  of  the  morality  or 
the  religious  bearing  of  that  chivalric  enterprise,  but  I  refer  simply 
to  its  effects  on  man  in  his  social  character,  and  affirm,  without  hesi¬ 
tation,  that,  in  the  order  of  human  things,  to  these  crusaders  the 
Avestcrn  nations  of  Europe  are  indebted  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Christian  faith. 


*562 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  LECTURE. 


Then  it  was,  too,  that  another  order  of  society  which  had  spiung 
up,  a  vestige  of  ancient  slavery,  was  itself  diminished.  I  allude  to 
serfage,  which  mingled  in  all  that  complicated  feudal  system,  and 
was  but  another,  a  milder  form  of  the  slavery  of  a  past  age.  But 
the  serf  who  accompanied  his  lord  in  the  crusades  was,  when  he 
returned,  no  longer  a  serf,  but  a  free  man.  In  relation  to  this  whole 
class,  you  see  the  mild  and  gentle  influence  of  Chiistianity  in  the 
amelioration  of  their  condition.  Under  the  ancient  law  of  the  em¬ 
pire  the  master  could  not  emancipate  his  slave,  except  under  the 
greatest  restrictions.  The  new  legislation  prepared  the  way  for  the 
emancipation  of  the  serf,  and  provided  for  it  on  a  thousand  occa¬ 
sions,  on  which  men  ought  to  be  grateful  to  God.  Now  a  baron  or 
nobleman,  on  the  birth  of  a  son — now  a  youth  when  he  attained  his 
majority.  Now,  on  the  occurrence  of  any  other  prosperous  or  de¬ 
sirable  event,  gratitude  was  to  be  displayed  by  raising  the  serf  to 
the  privileges  of  freedom.  And  thus  all  over  Europe  you  discover 
at  this  period  the  growing  influence  of  Christianity  on  human  soci¬ 
ety — a  softening  down  and  an  amelioration,  a  shedding  upon  legis¬ 
lation  and  social  existence  all  those  benign  influences  of  religion, 
whose  operation  prepared  the  way  for  a  higher  state  of  civilization 
than  that  which  we  now  enjoy.  Subsequently  to  this  you  perceive 
the  rapid  progress  of  knowledge.  You  find  the  Universities  of 
Paris,  Pavia,  Oxford,  and  Cambridge,  of  anterior  origin.  And  it  is 
remarkable  that  even  during  this  period,  from  the  first  dawn  of  the 
revival  of  letters  in  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  how 
rapid  was  the  advance  towards  the  full  day  of  civilization.  It  is 
during  this  century  that  we  read  of  twelve  thousand  students  at 
Oxford  alone  at  one  time ;  and  at  another  time,  of  thirty  thousand 
students,  when  every  monastery  besides  had  its  school,  and  was  the 
centre  around  which  towns  and  villages  and  shires  and  counties 
w^ere  formed.  When  all  this  was  going  on,  then,  had  it  not  been 
for  the  shock  of  subsequent  events,  we  can  easily  perceive  that  the 
progress  of  civilization  would  have  been  far  more  advanced  at  pres¬ 
ent  than  it  was.  (Great  applause.) 

We  are  in  the  habit  also  of  supposing  that  what  we  term  human 
rights,  and  the  particular  limitations  of  rights  and  duties,  were  but 
imperfectly  understood  at  this  time.  That  it  was  to  a  certain 
extent  is  true.  That  there  w^ere  abuses,  persecution,  and  crimes  of 
every  kind,  just  as  now,  only  perhaps  of  a  somewhat  coarser  form, 
is  not  to  be  denied.  But  we  are  in  the  habit  of  supposing  that  men 
at  this  time  were  entirely  dependent,  if  not  in  temporal,  at  all  events 
in  spiritual  matters,  on  the  clergy,  and  that  what  the  latter  ordered 
the  former  were  prepared  to  do  at  all  hazards.  No  falser  concep¬ 
tion  could  be  formed  than  this.  On  the  contrary,  so  far  from  being 
in  bondage  to  either  spiritual  or  secular  guides,  it  was  then  that,  in 
the  name  of  future  generations,  they  took  that  noble  stand  in  favor 
of  human  rights,  because  they  were,  as  might  well  be  said,  the  shield 
of  humanity  exalted  in  the  ^person  of  Chirst  by  union  with  the 
Deity  itself.  If  you  speak  of  the  institutions  of  an  Alfred. — o^  tl-- 


/ 


IJiTFLUENCE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  UPON  CIVILIZATION. 


363 


Very  forms  of  legislation — of  deliberative  assemblies — of  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  jurisprudence — of  the  civil  law — of  what  has  been  called 
the  common  law — I  can  tell  you  that  if  you  thread  them  all  up  to 
their  true  source,  you  will  find  that  it  was  in  the  sanctuary ;  there 
was  the  origin  of  all  that  is  now  most  dearly  cherished  in  our  social 
institutions.  (Loud  applause.) 

Had  the  ancients  anything  of  a  representative  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  ?  No.  Did  they  know  or  recognize  anything  of  those  three 
divisions — legislature,  judiciary,  and  executive?  Had  they  any 
knowledge  of  that  phrase,  whose  origin  we  ourselves  do  not  perhaps 
always  recollect,  the  “  Commonalty,”  or  Commons  of  England  ? 
No.  They  had  no  idea  of  a  representative  and  deliberative  assem¬ 
bly.  And  where  did  the  idea  of  the  “three  Estates” — of  the 
“  Estates  general” — of  the  “  Cortes”  of  Spain — for  trodden  down 
Spain  was  once  one  of  the  first  and  freest  nations  of  Europe — origi¬ 
nate  ?  In  the  councils  of  the  Church !  The  bishops  assembled  in 
council  and  representatives  of  other  orders  were  there  also.  I  defy 
any  historian  to  find  any  other  origin  for  the  representative  form  of 
government.  If,  again,  you  turn  your  eyes  to  the  scientific  develop¬ 
ments  of  the  human  mind,  where  had  it  its  origin  and  where  its 
proudest  triumphs  ?  Just  go  and  measure  if  you  can  the  dimensions 
of  those  cathedrals  and  minsters  which  were  upreared  in  those  ages. 
Trace  the  development  of  the  mind  and  the  nicety  and  exactitude  of 
the  science  by  which  the  illuminated  pages  of  manuscripts  were 
lighted  up.  Measure  those  mighty  domes  suspended  in  the  air,  those 
long  and  lofty  arches  pointed  in  the  style  called  Gothic,  but  which 
properly  speaking  is  not  Gothic  but  Christian,  and  you  will  see  that 
these  men,  in  what  we  call  the  “  dark  ages,”  but  what  were  in  reality 
the  middle  ages,  the  ages  of  transition,  knew  how  to  stretch  with 
precision  the  architect’s  line  along  the  earth,  and  lay  the  foundations 
of  noble  edifices  and  raise  them  up,  and  turn  the  stones  into  form  and 
suspend  them  in  long  drawn-arches  over  the  “  long-drawn  aisle,  and 
fretted  vault.”  I  question  much,  strange  as  it  may  sound,  whether 
we  have  science  enough  to  know  how  to  take  down  these  noble 
structures — it  is  certain  we  have  not  enough  to  know  how  to  recon¬ 
struct  them.  (Loud  applause). 

But  let  us  pass  to  those  striking  evidences  of  higher  civilization 
which  are  presented  by  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  fine  arts,  of 
which  indeed  architecture,  on  which  I  have  just  touched,  is  one. 
Engraving,  painting,  sculpture,  all  these  things  were  necessarily 
lost  in  the  great  moral  catastrophe  to  which  I  have  already  alluded. 
In  my  conception  of  civilization,  I  wish  you  to  recollect  it  discovers 
its  growth  and  advancement  not  alone  in  those  arts  and  that  knowl¬ 
edge  which  have  their  application  merely  to  the  animal  comforte  and 
well-being  of  our  race.  Civilization  should  do  something  more  than 
provide  a  house  to  shelter  our  heads  and  clothing  to  shield  our 
bodies  from  the  cold  air.  God  has  created  us  with  rational  minds, 
and  has  also  endowed  us  with  afiections  which  yearn  for  appropri' 
ate  rutriment.  We  have  hearts  to  glow  with  ecstasy  or  throb  'with 


364 


ARCHBISHOP  hughes’  LECTURE. 


sympathizing  sorrow ;  we  have  imaginations  to  conceive  and  to 
create  ;  we  have  susceptibilities  keenly  alive  to  every  impression ; 
and  my  idea  of  a  liigh  state  of  civilization  is  of  that  which,  wliilst  it 
ministered  most  to  the  comfort  of  the  body,  and  imposed  the  least 
restramt  upon  the  individual,  should  at  the  same  time  allow,  and 
even  encourage,  the  highest  development  of  those  faculties  which 
distinguish  man  above  the  brute,  and  link  his  nature  with  divinity 
itself.  (Loud  applause.)  And  in  the  ages  of  which  I  now  speak,  was 
there  not  abundant  evidence  of  the  growth  and  supremacy  of  the 
moral  and  intellectual  faculties  of  man  ?  Besides  the  'sublimity  of 
the  architecture  of  the  religious  edifices  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
look  at  their  ornaments — the  painted  glass,  an  art  now  lost — the  ex¬ 
quisite  carving  in  wood — the  paintings  themselves,  developing  a 
new  idea  again  which  seemed  to  elevate  man  above  the  mere  matter 
of  this  perishing  earth  to  a  loftier  and  purer  region,  and  revealing 
the  mysterious  secret  that  there  were  new  forms  and  all  but  a  new 
life  dwelling  in  the  light  as  it  came  in  pencils  from  the  sun ;  and  that 
it  was  only  necessary  to  fix  a  surface  on  which  these  forms  could  be 
reflected,  in  order  to  create  a  whole  world  of  imagery  and  thought. 

Then  again  of  music,  to  what  is  its  cultivation  to  be  traced?  To 
the  inborn  desire  to  honor  the  Deity,  who  by  becoming  incarnate 
has  so  elevated  human  nature.  By  the  estimate  in  which  these 
things  were  held,  matter  ■was  depressed  in  the  scale  of  appreciation ; 
gold  w'as  depressed ;  money  was  depressed ;  everything  was  de- 
l^ressed  and  treated  as  the  dross  of  the  earth,  when  placed  in  the 
balance  opposite  to  man,  becaiise  he  had  a  soul  stamped  with  the 
image  of  his  God,  and  redeemed  by  his  Divine  Son  on  the  cross  of 
Calvary.  (Loud  applause.)  It  was  this  feeling  which  created  the 
forms  Avhich  live  on  the  breathing  canvas  ;  it  was  this  that  led  them 
to  the  depths  of  the  quarry,  there  to  perceive  the  figure  and  after¬ 
wards  to  labor  in  removing  the  surrounding  rubbish  until  they  gave 
to  the  world  such  forms  as  the  Moses  of  Michael  Angelo,  speaking 
with  every  feature,  and  wanting  only  the  human  voice  to  transmit 
the  sound.  (Great  applause.)  What  was  it  that  inspired  these 
men  ?  Religion.  And,  again,  if  you  look  at  the  walls  which  are 
immortalized  by  their  hands,  you  behold  ideas  embodied  and  pre¬ 
sented  to  your  bodily  sense,  of  which  you  could  otherwise  form  but 
a  feeble  conception.  He  read  of  the  judgment ;  he  studied  the 
prophets  and  the  apostles,  and  deeply  imbued  with  awe  and  rever¬ 
ence  of  the  solemn  mysteries  and  awful  sviblimities  of  the  Christian 
religion,  gave  visible  and  undying  existence  to  the  conceptions  of 
his  mind.  For  recollect  that  when  you  have  the  outward  signs  of 
civilization,  wdiether  it  be  in  architectural  monuments,  or  with  breath¬ 
ing  canvas,  or  in  the  all-but  speaking  statue — recollect  that  those 
were  first  created  in  the  mind,  and  all  the  rest  is  but  tlie  carrying 
out  of  that  IDEA  into  a  form  in  which  it  will  become  objective  to 
the  senses,  and  through  them  be  conveyed  to  the  mind.  You  be¬ 
hold  this  in  every  direction  ;  you  see  the  first  idea  of  Christianity 
contributing,  ministering  secretly,  silently,  without  violence,  ‘without 


INFLUEISrCB  OF  CHEISTIANITT  UPON  CIVILIZATIOK. 


365 


overturning  any  established  order,  but  always  through  the  heart,  to 
exalt  the  worth  of  the  human  soul.  Always  to  bring  comfort  to 
some  portion  of  suftering  humanity. 

And  after  this  was  another  means  and  a  most  important  one, 
which  I  had  almost  overlooked — the  spirit  of  missions,  which  was 
the  essence  and  the  soul  of  that  Christian  religion.  The  command 
of  our  Saviour  was :  “  Go  ye,  teach  all  nations,”  and  this  word  was 
never  silent,  never  inoperative,  but  as  a  principle  of  activity  Avas 
transmitted  as  one  undying  commission,  whereby  the  purposes  of 
redemption  were  to  be  accomplished.  This  spirit  of  missions,  hav¬ 
ing  Rome  for  its  centre  and  soui’ce,  became  the  medium  of  extend¬ 
ing  civilization  throughout  the  world.  The  missionary  going  on  his 
errand  of  mercy  brought  with  him  the  light  and  the  knowledge  of 
his  own  laud.  Thus  St.  Augustine  proceeds  from  Rome  to  England. 
Thus  the  missionaries  of  England  itself  in  later  times,  and  more 
particularly  of  Ireland,  became  the  apostles  at  once  of  Christianity, 
and  indirectly  of  civilization  too,  in  France,  Germany  and  the  north¬ 
ern  states  of  Europe.  But  not  only  was  the  light  of  one  nation  com¬ 
municated  to  another,  but  by  the  medium  of  missions  it  Avas  more 
generally  diffused  from  province  to  proAunce  of  the  same  land. 
Without  this  the  intellectual  commerce  of  distant  parts  of  the  same 
country  could  not  have  been  carried  on.  And  the  consequence  has 
been,  that  not  only  by  the  progresswe  influence  of  Christianity,  by 
its  missionaries,  Avas  felt  in  mellowing  doAvn  the  peculiar  institutions 
of  the  heterogeneous  tribes  settling  in  different  portions  of  the  same 
country,  into  a  certain  uniformity  both  of  feeling  and  of  ideas, 
Avhich  soon  took  the  form  of  general  legislation,  but  also  betAveen 
different  nations  through  the  medium  of  one  tie,  that  of  religion,  a 
kind  of  brotherhood  Avas  formed  among  the  states  themselA^es  by 
the  action  of  religion  in  its  unity  and  its  universality.  Without 
this,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  nations  Avould  have  been  isolated  and 
disjoined  from  each  other. 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  appreciate  at  its  just  value  the  services 
thus  rendered  to  the  temporal  condition  of  man  by  the  missionary 
spirit  of  the  Church.  For  we  must  recollect  that  in  those  limes 
there  Avere  no  railroads  to  facilitate  communication,  nor  higliAvays, 
nor  post-oflices,  nor  carriages,  nor  hotels.  And  even  in  regard  to 
these,  I  find  that  religion  is  the  principle  of  their  origin,  if  not  of 
their  perfection.  The  idea  which  penetrated  all  Christian  society  in 
those  ages,  inspired  men  Avith  an  impulse  for  every  enterprise  Avhich 
could  confer  a  benefit  on  that  humanity  Avhich  had  been  so  honored 
in  the  mystery  of  man’s  redemption.  In  accomplishing  these  Avorks 
they  considered  themseh^es  as  laboring  for  Christ,  Avhen  they  labored 
for  their  felloAv-men.  Thus  Ave  find  them  banding  themselves  to¬ 
gether  into  religious  confraternities  for  the  purpose  of  improving 
liighAvays,  building  bridges  across  rivers  otherwise  impassable,  and 
planting  monasteries  and  hospices  in  solitary  places,  AA'here  the 
traveller,  overtaken  by  night,  or  by  sickness,  or  by  the  tempest, 
might  find  the  shelter  of  a  Christian  brother’s  roof.  These  things, 


366 


AECHBISHOP  hughes’  LECTUEE. 


begun  by  the  spirit  of  religion,  were  afterwards  taken  np  and 
continued  by  the  secular  policy  of  the  States,  but  not  until  those 
States  had  been  themselves  imbued  with  science  and  other  aids 
equally  derived  from  religion,  for  accomplishing  the  task.  The  in¬ 
tercourse  among  men  by  these  means  became  enlarged.  The  light 
of  one  country  ot  province  was  made  to  shed  its  beams  on  another. 
Not  only  was  this  the  case  in  Europe,  but  it  extended  itself  to  every 
quarter  of  the  globe.  Wliilst  the  secular  adventurers  in  South 
America  sought  for  gold,  they  were  accompanied  by  the  mission¬ 
aries  of  religion,  who  wished  to  impart  the  light  of  Christianity  to 
the  nations  of  that  hemisphere,  and  who  were  invariably  the  friends 
and  the  jrrotectors  of  the  poor  Indians.  These  men,  actuated  by  their 
love  of  God  and  of  man,  were  ready  to  shed  their  blood  for  the 
cause  to  which  they  devoted  themselves  with  such  holy  zeal.  Even 
in  our  own  day,  whilst  the  English  soldiery,  in  the  spirit  of  conquest 
or  of  ambition,  are  knocking  at  the  outward  portals  of  China,  the 
French  missionary  has  been  pursuing  his  labor  of  love  in  the  heart 
of  that  empire  for  more  than  two  hundred  years ;  and  this  is  not 
for  the  advantages  of  home  manufacture  or  of  commerce,  but  to 
carry  the  gospel  of  Christ  to  that  people,  and  if  necessary,  as  many 
have  done,  to  yield  his  neck  to  the  axe  of  the  executioner.  (Great  and 
continued  applause.)  This  zeal  for  the  propagation  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  oftentimes  exercised  a  jioweful  influence  in  the  progress  of  navi¬ 
gation.  It  often  happened  that  when  other  motives  failed,  Christianity 
led  to  the  successful  enterprise,  and  even  under  the  circumstances  ante¬ 
cedent  to  the  great  discovery  by  Columbus  of  this  new  world,  when  all 
other  arguments  in  favor  of  the  expedition  had  failed  with  Isabella  her¬ 
self,  her  confessor  suggested  that  in  the  new  countries  souls  might  be 
found  who  could  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  this  argument  decided  the  question.  She  saw  with  that  intui¬ 
tive  vision  so  peculiar  to  the  age,  that  when  treasures  and  souls  were 
to  be  weighed  on  the  balance  against  each  other,  that  the  former 
were  of  no  value.  Her  jewels  were  immediately  pledged  for  the 
expense  of  the  expedition,  and  a  new  world  was  discovered.  (Great 
applause.)  I  have  already  trespassed  so  long  on  your  patience,  that 
I  must  again  apologize ;  I  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  There  is  no  one 
point  in  which  we  are  more  indebted  to  Christianity  than  in  the 
elevation  of  woman,  that  is  to  say,  one-half  of  the  human  race,  from 
the  degradation  and  oppression  of  which  she  is  universally  the  victim 
where  our  holy  religion  is  unknown.  This  is  her  condition  through¬ 
out  the  whole  earth,  even  at  the  present  day,  wherever  Christianity 
does  not  exist. 

On  this  point  .all  writers  are  agreed.  But  mark  the  contrast  in 
Christian  lands.  If  you  are  travelling  in  a  public  conveyance,  and 
a  female  m.akes  her  appearance,  her  sex  alone — unless  there  be  some¬ 
thing  positively  prejudicial  to  the  individual  known,  secures  for  her 
universal  attention,  and  she  takes  whatever  seat  she  chooses.  This 
trivial  occurrence  shows  remarkably  the  vast  difference  in  the  esti- 
niation  in  which  her  sex  is  held  in  ch  ilized  and  uncivilized  countries. 


IlsrFLUENCE  OF  CHEISTIANITT  UPON  CIVILIZATION. 


367 


And  if  yon  examine  more  particularly  into  the  causes  of  this,  you 
will  find  they  are  discoverable  in  the  same  Christian  sentiment,  and 
evince  its  supremacy  in  a  still  more  poetic  and  affecting  manner  tlian 
Ave  have  yet  seen  exhibited.  The  ancient  Christians,  who  lived 
immediately  near  the  times  of  our  Saviour,  did  not  fail  to  observe 
that  in  the  fall  of  our  race  by  primitive  disobedience,  Avoman  Avas 
the  first  to  be  seduced,  and  being  seduced,  became  a  seducer  in  her 
turn ;  and  they  conceived,  looking  at  her  condition  over  the  earth, 
that  in  consequence  of  this  the  Aveightier  ^^nrt  of  the  malediction 
resulting  from  that  disobedience  fell  upon  her,  and  that  on  this 
account,  by  the  permission  of  God,  until  her  Restorer  came,  Avhen, 
through  the  Avoman  there  should  be  a  reparation  made,  she  should 
be  in  a  suffei'ing  condition.  And  then  they  considered  that  a  glory 
corresponding  Avith  this  degradation  resulted  to  her  sex  from  the 
circumstance  of  the  Aurgin  of  Gallilee  being  selected  to  be  the 
mother  of  that  Saviour  in  Avhom  was  united  the  human  and  the 
divine  nature.  (Great  applause.)  The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  as  the 
type  of  regenerated  woman,  became  the  pride  and  glory  of  lier  sex 
— raised  aboAm  all  men  and  above  allt«ngels,  and  they  conceiA^ed  that 
the  nature  of  AVoman,  as  a  special  portion  of  humanity,  Avas  exalted 
and  ennobled,  and  in  some  measure  rendered  sacred  in  consequence 
of  her  relation  to  the  Saviour  of  mankind.  This  idea  perAvaded  the 
whole  of  that  society.  And  you  can  trace  it  in  all  those  orders 
having  religion  for  their  instinct,  and  Avhich  Avent  to  vindicate  and 
protect  that  sex.  You  can  perceive  it  in  a  thousand  relations  in 
Avhich  it  Avould  not  be  possible  for  me  to  dAvell. 

So  Avith  regard  to  almost  eAmrything  else.  Whilst  men  Avere 
thus  struggling  against  barbarism  and  ignorance,  and  their  progress 
checked  by  all  the  accidents  and  circumstances  of  our  nature,  you 
perceive  this  Autal  current  of  love  coming  from  the  Son  of  God  and 
pervading  every  heart,  and  making  humanity  as  a  kind  of  ideal  ob¬ 
ject  of  alniost  A'eneration.  This  was  the  source  Avhich  made  Avealth 
be  looked  upon  as  of  comparatiA^ely  little  Amlue,  and  man  to  bo  re¬ 
garded  as  Avorthy  of  all  that  his  brother  could  do  or  suffer  for  his 
sake.  But  Avhen  civilization  Avas  thus  advancing — whilst  men  Avere 
making  such  rapid  progress  in  letters,  in  eloquence,  painting,  sculp¬ 
ture,  music,  and  architecture,  an  event  occurred  on  Avhich,  hoAvever, 
I  have  no  desire  noAV  to  dAvell.  For  the  first  time  the  great  division 
of  the  human  mind  on  the  subject  of  religion  took  place,  and  Chris¬ 
tian  unity  Avas  broken.  We  cannot  but  deplore  that  as  a  misfortune, 
Avithout  at  all  entering  into  the  merits  of  the  question  on  one  side 
or  the  other.  But  the  stream  Avhich  had  passed  unbroken,  and 
vivified  all  lands  through  Avhich  it  passed,  Avas  uoav  turned  off  into 
narroAV  channels,  and  from  thencefortli  you  see  nothing  of  that  great 
united  co-operation — that  idea  binding  the  hearts  of  millions — but 
you  see  the  human  mind  distracted,  and  what  is  Avorse,  the  human 
heart  divided.  And  instead  of  laboring  altogether  Avith  unanimity 
of  tliought  and  purpose  for  the  general  Avelfare  of  mankind,  society 
becomes  cut  up  into  sections  and  cliques,  and  any  good  efforts  are 


368 


ARCHBISHOP  HHGHES’  LECTURE. 


counteracted  by  the  antagonism  of  another.  If  that  change  was 
sincerely  thought  necessaiy  by  those  who  led  in  it  in  order  to  please 
God,  who  will  judge  them?  Not  I.  Nevertheless  I  do  think  it 
is  a  point  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof  that  civili/iation  received 
a  shock,  a  check,  and  false  direction  there,  from  which  it  has  not  yet 
recovered,  and  perhaps  never  will.  This  was  the  complaint  of  Eras¬ 
mus  ;  beholding  the  evils  flowing  from  it,  he  described  it  as  an 
epoch  of  “  polemical  barbarism,”  He  and  many  others  even  at  that 
time,  could  deplore  the  sudden  check  given  to  men’s  united  intelligence, 
when  the  discovery  of  printing,  of  gunpowder,  of  the  perfect  use 
of  tlie  compass,  and  of  a  new  world,  and  all  the  important  elements 
for  promoting  civilization  gave  such  promise  and  certainty  of  the 
still  greater  advance  of  knowledge,  refinement,  and  liberal  studies. 

You  behold  that  from  this  time  the  features  of  civilization  are  not 
identical.  That  warmth — that  kind  of  poetry  of  feeling — that  en¬ 
thusiasm — that  effective,  united  counsel,  are  all  lost.  Even  liberty 
itself — even  the  social  rights  of  men,  in  almost  every  nation,  retro¬ 
graded.  It  may,  perhaps,  surprise  some  here  when  they  are  in¬ 
formed  that  before  that  time  liipain  was  a  free  country — not  free  as 
we  understand  it — but  comparatively  free — that  her  king  was  not 
absolute — that  he  could  not  grind  his  subjects  at  his  will,  but  his 
Cortes  stood  before  him,  and  lest  he  should  forget,  made  it  a  rule  to 
tell  him  “  that  each  of  them  was  as  good  as  he  was,  and  all  of  them 
together  much  better.”  Before  that  time — even  as  flir  back  as  the 
beginning  of  the  thii'teenth  century,  the  great  fountain  spring  of  all 
our  social  and  political  rights  burst  forth  into  the  Magna  Charta ; 
for  in  all  the  quarrels  of  Popes  and  Bishops  with  the  arbitrary 
powers  of  Kings  and  Governments,  you  will  always  find  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  Church  standing  by  the  side  of  human  rights  and 
struggling  for  their  extension.  In  that  contest  for  Magna  Charta, 
the  King,  misrepresenting  the  state  of  the  question,  obtained  the 
excommunication  of  the  Barons  ;  but  how  was  this  document  re¬ 
ceived  in  the  metropolis  of  England  ?  Just  as  it  would  be  at  the 
present  day — as  so  much  waste  paper.  The  King  could  not  find  a 
single  Bishop  who  would  publish  it.  He  had  to  compel  the  monks 
by  sending  his  troops  to  perform  that  office.  The  event  to  which  I 
have  alluded  destroyed  in  that  country  the  healthy  tone  of  independ¬ 
ence  here  manifested.  Neither  was  it  thus  in  England  alone.  On 
the  Continent  you  find  that  the  despotism  of  nearly  every  govern¬ 
ment  either  originated  with,  or  was  increased  by,  this  event.  The 
reasons  are  perfectly  obvious  and  natural.  The  different  States  soon 
discovered  that  this  new  religious  question  was  to  be  decided  by 
trooiis  and  battlefields ;  and  according  to  the  issue  the  governments 
flavored  the  old  or  the  new  system.  But  the  spirit  of  the  people 
was  broken  by  these  divisions,  and  the  opportunity  was  too  favora¬ 
ble  for  the  spirit  of  despotism  to  let  pass,  without  strengthening 
itself  through  their  disasters.  And  accordingly  the  whole  tone  of 
government  on  the  Continent  became  more  stringent  and  absolute, 
and  in  most  of  the  Northern  States  there  is  less  of  the  substance  of 


lOTLUENCE  OP  CHRISTIANITY  UPON  CIVILIZATION. 


369 


human  freedom  at  the  present  day,  than  there  was  when  that  event 
occurred. 

Civilization,  however,  is  still  going  on,  hut  the  vital  principle 
which  had  borne  it  so  long  has  been  essentially  impaired.  This  was 
a  religious  principle,  created  by  the  idea  of  Christianity,  in  which 
the  honor  and  the  benefits  of  the  Incarnation  were  received  as  em¬ 
bracing  the  whole  human  race.  The  jarinciple  still  abides  in  the 
larger  division  of  the  Christian  name,  but  in  the  other  division 
limited  and  impartial  views  of  the  Atonement  under  the  forms  of 
election  I’eceived  most  favor.  It  is  impossible,  I  think,  not  to  trace 
in  the  external  developments  of  society,  the  effects  of  this  change. 
The  impetus  which  society  had  received  continued  to  impart  a  mo¬ 
mentum,  even  after  the  great  motive  power  had  ceased  to  operate, 
and  after  others  had  been  substituted.  It  is  evident  that  in  modern 
ideas  humanity  is  less  prized  and  wealth  more.  The  direction  of 
civilization,  and  I  might  almost  say  the  soul  that  animates  it,  is  ma¬ 
terial.  Interest,  and  that  purely  of  an  earthly  kind,  is  the  great 
propeller  of  our  age.  As  to  results  for  bodily  comforts  it  answers 
as  well  as  any  other,  but  it  has  lost  that  high  and  holy  feeling  which 
caused  men  in  former  times  to  expect  the  recompense  of  their  self- 
devotion  in  the  approbation  of  God,  and  in  the  reward  of  another 
life.  The  consequence  is,  that  man  as  man  has  depreciated  ;  and 
money  has  acquired  an  awful  value.  The  proof  of  this  is  found  in 
everything  we  are  acquainted  with.  In  the  struggles  of  individuals 
and  associations  for  wealth ;  in  the  remarks  of  writers ;  in  every 
public  sign  from  which  a  judgment  may  be  inferred,  you  perceive 
how  much  more  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  mere  material  object — the 
possession  of  a  lai’ge  fortune,  or  extensive  lands,  or  great  revenues, 
than  there  is  on  the  higher  attributes  of  humanity,  the  noble  intel¬ 
lect  of  the  generous  heart.  It  is  impossible  not  to  perceive  in  mod¬ 
ern  society  this  melancholy  and  almost  universal  tendency.  We  see 
little  of  that  desire  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  human  nature. 
Men  are  no  longer  impelled  by  that  love,  that  atfection,  that  ideal 
and  lofty  estimate  of  humanity.  The  great  and  ennobling  influence 
of  the  mystery  of  Redemption  which  has  effected  such  wonders  in 
past  ages,  seems  to  have  almost  gone  away  from  us,  and  we  are  re¬ 
duced  to  a  selfish  struggle  for  the  things  of  this  life,  in  which  each 
human  being  seems  to  act  for  himself,  and  to  be  acted  upon  only  by 
motives  of  private  and  personal  interest. 

W ere  it  permitted  to  present  a  type  of  our  age  it  might  be  the 
splendid  edifice  of  a  joint  stock  or  banking  company  in  the  public 
square,  and  in  the  back  ground  a  simple  structure  for  a  Christian 
church.  The  former  building  open  six  days  of  the  week  and 
crowded  by  thousands  of  the  votaries  of  fortune,  the  latter  open 
only  on  Sunday,  and  its  interior  divided  into  apartments  according 
to  the  wealth  or  pretentions  of  those  who  occupy  them.  Even  in 
this,  you  witness  the  absence  of  that  ancient  picture  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian,  Church,  in  which  men  were  taught  practically  as  well  as  other¬ 
wise,  that  in  the  sight  of  God  they  are  all  equal,  and  though  the 
24 


370 


AECHEISHOP  hughes’  LECTURE. 


pointed  arch  and  vaulted  dome  rose  majestically  above  their  heads, 
barons,  and  nobles,  and  princes,  and  common  people,  all  occupied 
the  same  level  without  any  division  to  mark  their  distinctions,  be¬ 
cause  the  Incarnation  and  the  Redemi^tion  were  for  the  benefit,  not 
of  classes,  but  of  the  whole  human  race. 

It  ought  to  be  remarked  that  the  true  basis  of  civilization  must  be 
found  in  the  enlightenment  of  the  hixman  mind,  and  the  moral 
soundness  of  the  human  heart.  This  is  tlie  medium  through  which 
it  must  proceed  to  its  development  in  the  external  order  of  things. 
This  was  necessary  to  create  civilization  ;  it  will  be  indispensable  to 
sustain  i-t.  Nothing  can  be  more  manifest  than  that  the  well  being  of 
society  rests  upon  a  moral  foundation.  And  if  that  foundation 
should  become  weak  or  unhealthy,  or  if  it  should  in  itself  not  be 
sustained  by  the  supporting  power  of  religion,  then  civilization  must 
be  impaired  in  its  highest  attributes. 

It  certainly  will  not  be  for  want  of  science  or  skill,  or  external 
means  or  appliances,  if  civilization  should  at  any  future  time  retro¬ 
grade  in  this  country,  so  peculiarly  and  advantageously  distinguished 
from  all  others.  In  this  country  we  have  not  to  contend  with  that 
tenacity  with  which  the  nations  of  the  old  world  clung  to  ancient 
customs  and  usages.  We  have  seen  in  other  countries  men  strug¬ 
gling  for  centuries  to  effect  a  change  in  some  law,  on  account  of  the 
old  hereditary  prejudices  in  favor  of  it.  So  that  it  is  easily  seen 
that  in  this  country  a  remarkable  and  favorable  oj^portunity  of  mak¬ 
ing  great  advances  in  civilization,  is  afforded  in  its  freedom  from 
the  influence  of  such  jwejudices.  Such  a  state  of  things,  every  one 
must  see,  is  admirably  calculated  to  aid  the  development  of  human 
powers,  and  the  extension  of  human  rights.  It  presents  a  spectacle 
— a  phenomenon  which  the  ancient  world  would  have  believed 
utterly  impossible.  We  find  one  of  their  philosophers  s;peaking  of 
a  condition  of  society  in  which  religious  classes  should  bo  repre¬ 
sented,  and  he  calls  it  a  beautiful  chimera.  They  never  could  have 
imagined  that  a  nation  only  half  a  century  in  existence,  and  with 
sixteen  millions  of  people,  should  present  itself  to  the  world  in  the 
two-fold  character  of  governing  and  governed — every  man  having 
so  far  a  portion  of  what  constitutes  a  kingly  power,  and  at  the 
same  time  every  man  using  it  under  the  guidance  of  his  intellect, 
and  in  such  a  manner  as  shows  he  values  and  does  not  abuse  his 
prerogative.  (Great  a|)plause.)  This  is  a  spectacle  novel  in  the 
history  of  nations,  and  the  prayer  of  every  man  who  loves  human 
nature  and  respects  and  values  human  rights,  will  be,  that  this  shall 
go  down  to  posterity  undistiirbed,  but  with  increased  benefits  to 
mankind  and  growing  prosperity  until  the  latest  times.  (Long  con- 
^^ued  applause.) 


LECT17KE  ON  SOCIAL  SERVITUDE. 


371 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  ON 
SOCIAL  SERVITUDE: 

A  LECTURE,  DELIVERED  IN  THE'  TABERNACLE,  NEW  YORK,  MARCH 
29,  1843,  FOR  THE  BENEFIT  OF  THE  HALF-ORPHAN  ASYLUM 
ATTACHED  TO  ST.  JOSEPH’S  CHURCH. 

Society,  for  the  purposes  of  this  Lecture,  may  be  divided  into 
three  classes.  The  first  is  composed  of  the  few,  who,  possessing 
wealth,  enjoy  the  privileges  of  social  independence,  by  which  they 
can  command  the  services  and  labor  of  others,  without  having  either 
to  obey  or  labor  themselves.  The  next  is  of  those  who  comjiose  the 
great  mass  of  society,  especially  in  our  own  country,  who,  though 
they  live  by  the  productions  of  their  labor,  still  are  not  dependent 
on  the  will  of  given  employers,  but  whose  position  enables  them  to 
regulate  their  hours  of  toil  and  of  rest,  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  own  judgment  and  discretion.  The  third  class  consists  of 
those  who  have  to  depend  exclusively  for  their  means  of  subsistence 
on  labor  ; — and  who  are  dependent  for  the  privilege  of  labor,  which 
to  them  is  almost  of  life,  on  the  interests  and  caprice  of  employers. 

The  first  and  the  last  of  these  classes  have  always  existed,  from 
the  earliest  annals  of  the  human  race.  The  middle  class  is  of  com¬ 
paratively  modern  origin,  having  sprung  up,  imperceptibly,  during 
the  transition  of  society  from  the  feudal  syetem  to  the  more  attrac¬ 
tive  and  liberal  condition,  as  regards  laws  and  general  civilization, 
under  which  modern  society  lives.  This  middle  class  would  be, 
perhaps,  the  happiest  of  all;  but  time  has  developed  the  alarm¬ 
ing  fact,  that,  in  the  most  recent  stages  of  human  progress,  in  the 
countries  of  Europe,  this  class,  taken  in  the  aggregate,  is  undergoing 
a  gradual  diminution,  both  of  numbers  and  of  resources.  The  units, 
indeed,  are  observed  to  succeed,  by  successful  industry  and  fortunate 
enterprise,  in  scaling  the  social  heights,  and  rallying  under  the 
gorgeous  banner  of  the  first ;  whilst  the  tens,  and  the  hundreds,  are 
reluctantly  borne  downward,  on  the  social  scale,  till,  at  last,  they  are 


S72 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Been,  in  the  thickening  ranks  and  under  the  tattered  standard  of  the 
third.  If  we  are  to  place  any  confidence  in  the  statistics  of  France, 
and  more  especially  of  England,  this  result  is  becoming  every  day 
more  and  more  evident,  since  the  peace  of  1815. 

These  two  nations,  coming  down  to  us  by  unbroken  history,  from 
remote  antiquity,  furnish  the  richest  field  for  inquiry  and  investiga¬ 
tion,  to  those  who  would  speculate  in  the  philosophy  of  human 
society.  But  how  different  the  circumstances  of  both  countries, 
from  those  that  bless  and  distinguish  our  own  ;  which,  though  check¬ 
ed  from  time  to  time,  still  is,  as  regards  the  social  position  of  its 
inhabitants,  the  most  prosperous  and  happy  Land  on  the  surface  of 
the  globe.  Singular  in  the  manner  in  Avhich  it  was  peopled  by  a 
race  already  civilized,  unparalleled  in  the  variety  aud  salubrity  of 
its  climate,  unsurpassed  in  the  richness  and  fecundity  of  its  soil, 
unequaled  in  the  extent  of  its  territory,  with  the  rich  aud  regular 
harvest  waving  above,  and  immense  unexplored  treasures  of  minerals 
sleeping  beneath  the  surface  of  its  soil ; — with  a  population  among 
whom  there  are  no  privileged  classes,  among  whom,  education  and 
enlightened  enterprise  are  almost  universal ;  who  are  the  guardians 
of  their  own  rights,  the  interpreters  of  their  own  wants ; — among 
whom  in  fine  the  people  are  the  government,  and  that  government 
free  ;  the  American  citizen  who  is  a  part  and  a  proprietor  in  all  this 
may  witness  the  calamities  of  older  nations,  and  feel  no  other 
emotion  except  that  honorable  sentiment  of  our  nature  which 
prompts  us  to  sympathize  in  the  sufferings  of  any  portion  of  our 
race.  [Applause.] 

Still,  for  these  very  reasons,  it  is  evident  that  this  is  not  the  coun¬ 
try  from  which  the  Philosophy  of  History  may  derive  her  purest 
lessons  of  wisdom,  on  the  subject  of  human  society.  She  may  have 
opened  her  book  of  memoranda,  and  recorded  a  few  chapters — but 
still  it  must  be  evident  that  in  such  a  country  the  fruits  of  historical 
experience,  though  luxuriant  and  healthy,  are,  as  yet,  too  green ; — 
and  that  to  older  nations,  in  which  that  fruit  has  been  matured  and 
ripened  by  the  sunshine  and  the  showers  of  many  centuries,  she 
must  look  for  whatever  she  would  set  down  as  established  conclu¬ 
sions, — indisputable  maxims. 

The  increase  of  operatives,  or  the  diminution  of  labor,  or  both  to¬ 
gether,  has  become  in  the  two  countries  I  have  mentioned,  but 
particularly  in  Great  Britain,  a  question  of  startling  importance  to 
statesmen,  and  of  singular  embarrassment  and  perplexity  to  that 
class  of  philosophers  who  are  known  as  political  economists.  Various 
and  contradictory  have  been  their  speculations,  but  both  have  agreed 
that  if  there  be  danger  to  the  ship  of  State,  it  must  be  from  the  broken 
rocks  and  sunken  shoals  of  social  servitude,  which  have  been  cast 
or  drifted  with  feai'ful  accumulation  in  her  course.  Even  now  she 
is  seen  straining  in  the  effort  to  escape ;  and  whilst  the  obstinacy  of 
her  officers  will  not  allow  them  either  to  shift  the  ballast  or  take  in 
sail,  the  extraordinary  leeway  which  she  makes,  reveals  to  the  hand 
of  her  most  skillful  aud  experienced  Pilot,  almost  for  the  first  time, 


LECTURE  ON  SOCIAL  SERVITUDE. 


373 


that  she  ceases  to  obey  her  rudder.  Will  she  be  shipwrecked,  that 
gallant  old  bark,  that  has  breasted  the  billows,  and  braved  the 
storms  of  a  thousand  years  ?  Time  alone  can  determine  and  solve 
the  problem. 

The  disciples  and  even  masters  of  iDolitical  economy  have  at¬ 
tempted  it ;  but  facts  and  results  are  every  day  developing  them- 
selves,  'which  confound  their  theories  and  speculation.  It  is  not  so 
clear  that  the  rich  are  becoming  richer,  but  it  is  certain  that  the 
poor  are  every  day  becoming  more  poor  and  more  numerous. 
It  is  remarked  that  this  class  of  writers  have,  generally,  considered 
man  in  his  social  relation,  and  indeed  society  itself,  as  a  being  invest¬ 
ed  with  a  single  attribute,  viz.,  the  power  of  “  producing  and  of 
consuming  ;  ”  that  is,  as  an  animal  with  whose  existence  in  society, 
one  or  other  of  those  results  is  inse2')arably  connected.  They  have 
hardly  thought  it  worth  while  to  take  his  intellect  into  account ; 
ivhilst  they  have  uniformly  overlooked  his  aftections,  feelings,  his 
moral  and  religious  nature  ;  and  so  long  as  they  consider  him  abstract¬ 
edly  se^iarated  from  these,  they  discuss  something  less  than  half  the 
subject  on  which  they  profess  to  write. 

“Producer,”  “consumer,”  “production,”  “consumption,” — it  is 
astonishing  to  consider  what  books,  what  statistics,  what  calcula¬ 
tions,  what  jorodigious  mental  labor,  have  been  expended  on  these 
four  words.  Yet  it  does  not  so  far  appear  that  either  the  writers  or 
the  readers  of  these  books,  or  the  nations  for  whom  they  were 
written,  have  been  able  to  extract  from  their  pages  the  secret  where¬ 
by  the  increase  of  poverty  might'  be  arrested,  or  the  millions  rescued 
from  the  horrors  of  want  and  destitution,  with  which  the  whole 
dejiartment  of  social  servitude  is  threatened  and  of  which  many 
from  its  ranks  have  already  fallen  victims.  But  whatever  may  be 
the  character  of  their  reasoning,  too  much  importance  cannot  be 
attached  to  the  facts  on  which  it  was  founded.  And  the  conclusions 
to  which  one  school  of  these  writers  has  come,  give  us  a  fearful  idea 
of  these  flicts.  One  of  these  conclusions  is,  that  in  the  absence  of 
war  and  other  wholesale  messengers  of  death,  the  productions  of  the 
earth  would,  in  a  short  time,  be  insufficient  for  the  consumiition  of 
its  inhabitants  ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  would  be  a  measure  of  political 
wisdom  to  prevent  the  increase  of  the  f)02mlation,  and  thus  pros¬ 
pectively  diminish  the  number  of  the  ]ioor — without  the  crime  of 
killing  off  those  who  are  in  actual  existence. 

Whole  volumes  could  not  give  us  so  clear  an  idea  of  the  extent 
of  calamity  with  which  the  condition  of  social  servitude  is  threaten¬ 
ed,  as  the  simple  fact  that  the  author  of  this  view  is  a  clergyman, 
that  the  doctrine  which  it  maintains  should  be  popular  in  a  nation 
professing  the  Christian  religion.  Dee}!  and  festering  must  be  the 
disease  in  the  social  body,  which  could  authorize  the  jiroposal  of 
such  a  remedy,  not  even  to  heal,  but  to  prevent  its  spreading 
ffirther. 

Alas  !  for  the  condition  of  social  servitude,  and  alas  !  for  the 
poor  so  nearly  related  to  it,  if  a  better  book  had  not  been  written 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


}V4 

lhan  ever  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  political  economy.  I  tun\ 
away  from  its  cold  pages,  and  look  for  a  better  economy  in  the 
Dook  of  God  ;  hnt  the  book  of  man  also,  as  especially  of  the  poor. 
In  it  I  read  “  the  poor  you  have  always  with  you,  and  when  you 
wdll  you  can  do  good  unto  them.  Do  unto  others,  as  you  would 
that  they  should  do  unto  you — feed  the  hungry,  clothe  the  naked, 
give  drink  to  the  thirsty,  and  as  often  as  you  do  it  to  the  least  of 
my  brethren,  you  do  it  unto  me.”  Here  is  the  source  from  which 
every  amelioration,  in  the  condition  of  social  servitude,  has  flowed  ; 
and  if  the  experience  of  mankind,  from  the  origin  of  history,  can 
authorize  any  conclusion,  it  will  be  that  is  it  vain  to  expect  it  from 
any  other. 

Social  servitude,  in  one  form  or  another,  has  existed  from  the 
earliest  formation  of  society.  But  it  would  be  a  gross  mistake  to 
suppose  that  society  always  was  Avhat  it  is  at  present — and  yet  this 
is  a  mistake  which  is  by  no  means  rare,  especially  among  superficial 
minds.  They  wonder  why  things  should  have  ever  been  diflerent 
from  what  they  are  at  present — forgetting  or  rather  not  comprehend¬ 
ing  that  the  social  relations  by  virtue  of  new  discoveries,  new  im¬ 
provements,  new  laws,  and  consequently  new  rights,  and  new  duties, 
are  changing  every  day — even  in  the  time  that  now  is.  But  at 
whatever  period  you  examine  it,  under  v/hatever  phase  it  presents 
itself,  you  will  always  and  universally  find  that  servitude  has  been 
blended  into  the  very  being  and  existence  of  society.  If,  indeed, 
we  were  engaged  in  the  analysis  of  society  itself,  we  should  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  could  not  be  other¬ 
wise.  The  first  form  of  society,  as  it  is  still  its  greatest  element  of 
supply,  was  domestic ;  families  existed,  before  nations  were  foianed. 
Now  the  head  of  the  family  was  the  protector  of  his  household ; 
and  the  individual  who  found  himself  without  protection,  would 
attach  himself  to  some  other  family,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
means  of  life,  the  first  want  of  his  nature,  and  the  protection  of 
that  life  which  was  no  where  else  afforded.  Hence  we  know  that 
the  Patriarchs  had  slaves,  and  this  was  the  earliest  form  of  that 
social  servitude  which  has  come  down  to  the  present  day.  So,  also, 
the  Jewish  peoj^le  had  slaves.  But  it  would  be  erroneous  to  sup¬ 
pose,  tliat  Slave,  then,  meant  precisely  what  it  means  now ;  or  that 
the  condition  of  slaves  was  the  same  among  the  Jews  that  it  was 
among  pagan  nations.  Not  only  did  the  spirit  of  their  religion 
inculcate  feelings  of  true  humanity,  but  the  laws  secured  to  the 
slaves  certain  privileges  unknown  to  other  nations ;  such  as  repose 
on  th  e  seventh  day,  restoration  to  freedom  in  the  seventh  year,  or 
at  least  in  the  year  of  Jubilee. 

To  these  causes,  which  existed  also  among  pagan  nations,  was 
added  others,  namely,  the  rights  of  conquest.  Before  Christianity, 
and  even  now,  Avherever  Christianity  does  not  exist,  the  recognized 
law  of  nations  allowed  the  conqueror  to  take  the  life  of  his  prisoners 
of  war.  If  he  spared  their  lives,  and  deprived  them  of  their  liberty, 
it  uas  considered  as  an  act  of  humanity  ratter  than  of  cruelty. 


LECTURE  ON  SOCIAL  SERVITUDE. 


a  7a 

FTence  slavery  v/as  found  extensively  established  among  the  Assy¬ 
rians,  the  tirst  warriors  of  the  primitive  times.  In  Egypt  also  it 
existed  ;  but  it  is  from  Greece  and  Rome  that  we  can  gather  an  idea 
of  the  treatment  of  slaves,  and  the  notions  that  were  entertained 
respecting  them,  and  it  will  be  necessary  to  have  some  conception 
of  both,  in  order  to  appreciate  the  benefits  rendered  to  this  unhappy 
class  by  the  Christian  religion. 

The  Spartans  stand  before  our  imagination  as  a  brave,  frugal, 
abstemious  })eople;  especially  jealous  to  exclude  the  enerv.ating  in¬ 
fluences  of  artificial  life.  We  should  have  exjiected  some  ti’aits  of 
humanity  fi-oni  such  a  people,  in  keeping  with  that  courage  of  which 
they  furnished  such  splendid  examples,  and  that  simplicity  of  social 
manners  Avhich  they  aftected.  And  yet  in  the  treatment  of  their 
slaves  they  ivere  system.atically  ferocious.  ISl ot  only  were  the  slaves 
punished  individually  when  they  committed  crimes,  but  at  stated 
intervals  they  were  all  scourged  by  public  authority,  not  for  crimes, 
but  in  order,  as  the  law  expressed  it,  to  keep  them  in  mind  of  their 
condition.  Xot  only  were  they  made  drunk  in  presence  of  the 
national  youth,  to  excite  a  horror  of  intemperance,  but,  as  an  exer¬ 
cise  and  preparation  for  war,  they  were  hunted  by  that  same  youth, 
on  the  plains  of  Laconia,  as  the  Indian  hunts  the  bufialoon  the  Wes¬ 
tern  prairies,  or  the  Roman  used  to  pursue  the  wild  boar  on  the 
sides  of  the  Appenines. 

The  Athenians  were  not  so  cruel  to  their  slaves.  But  the  number 
of  these,  compared  with  the  free  population,  is  almost  incredible. 
Atheneus  tells  us,  that  for  twenty  or  twenty-one  thousand  free  citi¬ 
zens,  the  city  of  Pericles  contained  four  hundred  thousand  slaves. 
It  is  to  be  remembered  that  these  were  of  the  same  race  and  the 
same  color  as  their  masters,  the  only  dilference  was,  that  Greeks 
could  not  reduce  Greeks  to  bondage,  even  by  the  chances  of  war, 
but  all  who  lived  out  of  Greece  were  for  them  barbarians,  and  as  it 
was  only  justice  when  made  prisoners  to  take  their  life,  so  it  was 
considered  mercy  to  let  them  live  on  condition  of  perpetual  sei’vitude. 

But  were  there  not  wise  men,  philosophers,  in  that  classic  land 
of  pagan  civiliz'ation  ?  How  did  these  things  strike  their  minds  ? 
Just  as  they  did  the  minds  of  all  other  pagan  nations.  With 
all  their  powers  of  reason  and  philosophy,  they  looked  upon 
slavery  as  an  ordinance  and  condition  established  by  Nature  her¬ 
self.  Plato,  in  his  treatise  on  laws,  gives  out  the  prevailing  opinions 
among  his  countrymen  on  this  subject ;  and  from  these  Athenius 
draws  the  general  conclusion,  that  tliere  is  nothing  good  in  the  soul 
of  a  slave,  and  that  a  wise  man  ought  not  in  any  case  to  trust  him. 
In  support  of  this  view  are  two  verses  of  Homer,  in  which  the  poet 
says,  that  Jupiter  took  away  one-half  their  intelligence  from  those 
whom  he  destines  to  slavery.  Aristotle  maintains,  as  a  principle 
not  to  be  disputed,  that  slavery  is  a  part  of  the  order  established  by 
N.ature.  Among  the  warlike  and  cruel  Romans  the  same  ideas  pre 
vail.  The  Indians  of  the  East  had  a  far  more  rational  theory  for 
the  explanation  of  slavery.  They  believed  in  the  transmigration  of 


376 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


souls  and  regarded  slavery  in  our  life,  as  a  punishment  inflicted  for 
the  crimes  committed  in  some  previous  state.  If  the  doctrine  had 
been  true,  the  explanation  would  have  been  natural  and  just.  The 
German  nations  entertained  views  similar  to  those  of  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  regarding  slavery,  as  a  natural  condition,  and  slaves  as 
being,  if  not  of  a  diflerent,  at  least  of  inferior  nature— and  to  this 
day  the  proper  conceptions  prevalent  among  them  derives  nobility 
less  from  outward  circumstances  than  from  the  current  of  the 
blood,  because  during  their  paganism,  it  was  their  belief  that  the 
blood  was  the  principal  seat  of  the  soul. 

Such  were  the  ideas  that  prevailed  among  the  best  lights  of  an¬ 
cient  paganism.  And  if  these  constitute  the  light,  Avhat  must  be 
the  darkness.  With  such  ideas,  without  any  knowledge  of  the  true 
God — or  the  true  end  of  man’s  creation — with  slavery  as  universal 
as  the  human  race — with  an  unlimited  power  even  over  life  recog¬ 
nized  in  the  master — with  scarcely  a  check  or  an  inducement  for  the 
restraint  of  human  passions — with  a  set  of  pretended  immortal  gods, 
whose  very  example  was  an  encouragement  to  licentiousness  and 
crime — when  we  take  all  these  things  into  account,  the  soul  shrinks 
back  upon  herself  overwhelmed  and  aftrighted  at  the  contemplation 
of  the  multitudinous  evils,  physical  and  moral,  which  are  interwoven 
with  the  condition  of  ancient  slavery. 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  human  race  when  the  Divine  Author 
of  our  religion  came  to  establish,  even  in  the  midst  of  its  corrup¬ 
tions,  a  kingdom  which  is  not  of  this  world.  He  recognized  the 
diversity  of  conditions  in  society — it  was  at  once  a  consequence  and 
an  evidence  of  the  fall  of  the  human  race,  by  primitive  transgression 
and  the  carnal  corruption  of  its  way.  But  he  revived  the  knowledge 
of  tJie  True  Master  of  all,  whom  the  nations  had  forgotten,  and  pro¬ 
claimed  that  in  His  sight,  all  men  are  equal.  In  his  doctrine  there 
was  nothing  of  anarchy,  nothing  of  violence,  nothing  of  coercion. 
He,  himself,  and  after  him  his  apostles,  submitted  to  the  injustice 
and  oppression  of  earthly  oppressors  and  earthly  rulers,  and  thus, 
whilst  they  remonstrated  against  the  injustice,  they  respected,  even 
in  its  perversion,  the  principle  of  authority  which  sanctioned  it.  He 
established  the  true  relations  between  God  and  man.  He  instructed 
his  disciples  in  their  duty,  he  promised  them  the  aid  of  his  grace  to 
perform  it.  He  planted  in  their  breast  the  celestiakvirtue  of  chai-ity, 
taught  them  the  love  of  God,  and  commanded  them  to  io\-e  one 
another. 

Here  is  the  germ  of  every  social  amelioration  which  has  accom¬ 
panied  or  followed  the  march  of  Christianity  throughout  the  world. 
If  it  be  asked  why  these  ameliorations,  especially  as  regards  the 
condition  of  social  servitude,  were  so  slow,  so  gradual,  so  almost 
imperceptible,  in  their  develo])ment,  the  answer  is  obvious.  It  is 
because  He  left  man’s  free-will  undestroyed,  unimpaired.  He  pro¬ 
posed  the  good.  He  promised  his  assistance  to  all  men  to  accomplish 
it;  but,  at  the  same  time.  He  did  not  employ  his  Almighty  jiower 
to  force  or  compel  them.  So  that,  in  fact,  they  were  still  competent 


LECTUEE  02Sr  SOCIAL  SEEVITUDE. 


377 


to  reject  the  good,  and  pursue  the  evil ;  but  then,  all  tliis,  again,  at 
the  awful  responsibility  of  a  future  judgment  before  an  infldlible 
tribunal.  This  also  is  a  key  to  the  discrimination  and  understanding 
of  Church  history — the  dividing  line  between  the  virtues  and  the 
vices  which  it  records.  Surely  both  did  not  proceed  from  the  same 
source.  All  that  is  good  is  due  to  Cliristianity — all  that  is  evil  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  perverse  exercise  of  man’s  free  will,  in  despite, 
and  in  contempt,  of  what  Christianity  teaches.  This  is  an  impor¬ 
tant  distinction  which  is  never  to  be  lost  sight  of.  In  fact,  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  Christianity  had  reference  to  the  spiritual  world,  but 
through  it,  it  would  be  imiiossible  that  their  development  should 
not  exercise  a  salutary  influence  on  that  which  is  external  or  ma¬ 
terial.  Thus  St.  Paul  says : — “  Let  every  one  abide  in  the  calling 
in  which  he  was  called.  Wast  thou  called,  being  a  bondman? 
(’are  not  for  it — but  if  thou  mayest  be  free,  use  it  rather.”  And, 
again,  in  reference  to  those  baptized  into  the  new'  Society,  he  says — ■ 
•‘There  is  neither  Jew,  nor  Greek;  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free, 
there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ;  for  you  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.” 
The  same  apostle  after  having  converted  Onesimus,  a  fugitive  slave 
of  his  disciple  Philemon,  sends  him  back  with  a  letter,  in  which  we 
see  the  true  spirit  and  tendency  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  that 
epistle  he  calls  the  slave  his  “  spiritual  son  ” — and  recommends  him 
to  his  master  no  longer  as  a  servant,  but  “  as  a  most  dear  brother.” 
Of  whom  he  says,  “I  would  have  retained  him,  but  without  thy 
consent  I  would  do  nothing ;  that  thy  good  deed  might  not  be  as  it 
were  of  necessity,  but  voluntary P 

This  manifestation  of  the  spirit  of  Christ,  seems  to  have  furnished 
the  rule  and  the  model  of  the  Church’s  action  on  the  condition  of 
social  servitude.  She  exalted  the  action  and  the  feelings  of  the  ser¬ 
vant,  she  brought  down  the  pride  and  rebuked  the  cruelty  of  his 
temporal  lord,  she  instilled  heavenly  charity  into  the  bosoms  of  both, 
she  taught  them  to  love  one  another  ;  this  was  the  first  stage — and 
then  through  the  converted  heart  of  the  master,  she  trusted  and 
hoped  for  the  liberation  of  the  slave,  that  the  good  deed  of  the 
former  might  not  be  as  it  were  of  necessity,  but  voluntary.  Nor 
jvas  she  disappointed  in  her  charitable  expectations.  The  su])})osi- 
tion  that  all  should  have  been  emancipated,  simultaneously  with  the 
progress  of  Chi'istianity,  would  be  an  absurd  supposition,  when  it 
is  remembered  that  in  those  ages  perha])S  nine-tenths  of  the  human 
race  were  in  the  condition  of  slaves.  Put  the  thing  was  in  itself 
utterly  impossible. 

Still  we  see,  and  your  feelings  will  be  relieved  by  observing,  even 
in  a  few  instances,  where  multitudes  might  be  mentioned,  the  Avork- 
ing  of  the  Christian  principle.  The  first  known  instance  among  the 
greht  of  a  real  enfranchisement  of  slaves  Avas  by  Ilermas,  Prefect  of 
Pome,  Avho  Avas  converted  to  Christianity  by  Pope  Alexander,  under 
Trajan,  Avhilst  the  Emperor  Avas  absent  in  a  cainjiaign  against  the 
I’ersians.  This  great  man,  with  his  Avife  and  sistei’,  his  sons,  and 
1,250  slaves,  Avith  their  Avives  and  children,  Aveut  over  to  Christian- 


878 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ity  together;  and  on  Easter  day,  when  they  were  baptized,  he  gare 
them  all  civil  freedom,  and  as  they  had  neither  property  nor  trades, 
he  gave  them  means  of  support  until  they  should  be  able  to  gain 
their  own  livelihood.  Another  remarkable  instance  occurs  under 
the  Emperor  Dioclesian.  St.  Sebastian  was  a  Centurion  of  Rome,  a 
Christian,  and  the  same  whose  martyrdom,  having  been  tied  to  a 
tree  and  shot  to  death  with  arrows,  has  furnished  such  a  universal 
subject  to  painters.  He  was  the  instrument  of  God  in  the  conver¬ 
sion  of  Chromatins,  who  on  the  day  of  his  baptism  liberated  1,400 
slaves  of  both  sexes,  saying,  that  they  who  began  to  have  God  for 
their  father^  should  cease  to  be  the  slaves  of  a  man ;  and  like  Her- 
mas  he  provided  them  ivith  all  necessaries  for  their  new  condition. 

Even  during  the  persecutions  under  the  Pagan  Emperors,  we 
learn  from  the  writings  of  St.  Jerome  that  multitudes  of  slaves  were 
receiving  their  freedom  from  rich  families  converted  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  faith.  St.  Milaine,  with  the  consent  of  her  husband,  Pinius, 
who  was  yet  a  pagan,  liberated  8,000  of  her  slaves,  and  others  who 
would  not  accept  freedom  she  presented  to  her  brother-in-law,  Se- 
verus.  Many  other  instances  might  be  presented,  but  these  are 
sufficient  to  demonstrate  the  early  and  practical  working  of  Charity 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Christian  Church.  Celsus,  representing  the 
feeling  of  old  Roman  Paganism,  made  it  a  reproach  that  the  Church 
instructed  slaves,  and  received  them  into  her  communion.  And  in 
reply,  Origoii,  writing  in  the  third  century,  says,  “  we  confess  we 
wish  to  instruct  all  men;  and  though  Celsus  may  not  desire  it  we 
wish  to  show  servants  how,  by  acquiring  a  freed  mind,  they  may  be 
ennobled  by  the  Word.”  At  a  later  period,  Lactantius,  too,  an¬ 
swering  similar  objections,  unfolds  the  spirit  which  her  founder 
breathed  into  his  Church.  “  With  God,”  says  he,  “  no  one  is  a 
slave,  no  one  a  master ;  for  since  he  is  the  same  father  to  all,  we  are 
all  his  children,  and  all  brethren.” 

Rut  after  St.  Paul  there  is  none  who  rendered  more  essential  ser¬ 
vice  in  rescuing  the  victims  of  social  servitude  than  the  eloquent 
and  saintly  Chrysostom.  And  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  the 
intrepid  Bishop  should  have  become  a  subject  of  persecution,  when 
he  made  such  sentences  as  these  ring  in  the  very  ears  of  the  pride^ 
the  pomp  and  voluptuousness  of  the  eastern  Capital; — “You  say, 

‘  my  father  is  a  Consul  ’ — how  does  that  affect  me  ?  you  have  ances¬ 
tors,  no  doubt,  since  you  come  after  them ;  but  I  may  call  a  slave  a 
nobleman  and  a  nobleman  a  slave,  when  I  am  informed  of  their 
moral  character.  How  many  lords  lie  drunken  on  their  couch, 
wiiilst  slaves  stand  by  fasting  ?  Which  shall  I  call  the  not  free — 
the  Easters  or  the  Drunkards  ?  ”  Among  the  Latin  Fathers,  St. 
Ambrose,  St.  Augustine,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Chrysologus  were  equally 
zealous  in  their  efforts  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  social  servi¬ 
tude  preparatory  to  final  and  universal  emancipation.  Nothing 
could  mark  more  strongly  the  progress  that  Christianity  had  al¬ 
ready  made  than  the  fact  that  Ambrose,  who  preached  the  equality 
of  slaves  with  their  masters,  did  not  hesitate  on  the  other  hand  to 


LECTURE  ON  SOCIAL  SERTITUDE, 


379 


require  tliat  the  Emperor,  iviiom  the  pagans  a  short  time  before 
were  accustomed  to  worship  as  a  deity,  should  acknowledge  his 
equality  with  the  humblest  member  of  the  Church,  by  taking  his 
place  on  the  porch  of  the  temple,  and  thus  among  the  public  jieni- 
tents,  making  reparation  for  his  public  scandal. 

Tims  by  the  idea  of  equality  and  the  spirit  of  Christian  charity 
infused  into  the  whole  body  of  Christians — by  the  mitigation  of  se¬ 
vere  laws — by  the  multiplying  of  legal  facilities  for  the  process  of 
emancipation — by  the  ever-living  and  active  zeal  of  the  clergy — ply¬ 
ing  the  powers  of  their  influence  individually  within  their  small  but 
numerous  circles  over  the  empire, — ancient  slavery,  so  ingraiqed  in 
the  very  essence  of  pagan  society,  was  almost  entirely  abolished ; 
when  the  progress  of  amelioration  was  suddenly  arrested  by  the  ir¬ 
ruption  of  pagan  barbarians  from  the  north  and  east  of  Europe — 
wdiose  coming  was  as  when  the  sliding  avalanche  overlays  the  bloom¬ 
ing  and  peaceful  valley  at  its  base — or  as  the  deluge  when  the  cata¬ 
racts  of  heaven  were  opened  and  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep 
broken  up.  They  felt  that  they  were  executing  a  mission,  but  its 
nature  and  purposes  were  mysterious  to  themselves.  They  were 
merely  conscious  of  a  two-fold  instinct,  the  plunder  of  what  they 
might  carry  away  and  the  destruction  of  what  they  should  be  obliged 
to  leave  behind.  Having  gratified  their  impulses  they  were  gone, 
and  their  career  was  to  be  traced  only  by  the  universal  ruin  which 
they  left  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  their  visit.  Again  and  again 
they  return  and  disappear  in  like  manner,  before  they  finally  deter¬ 
mine  to  take  possession  of  the  best  parts  of  the  Empire  and  its  in¬ 
habitants,  now  prostrate  at  their  feet.  They  despised  labor,  and 
they  regarded  all  that  appertained  to  refinement,  science,  literature, 
the  arts,  not  merely  with  sovereign  contempt,  but  with  positive  ha¬ 
tred.  But  a  good  sword,  a  brave  heart,  and  a  strong  right  arm — 
these  are  what  they  prized  and  worshipped  almost  to  idolatry.  The 
law  of  the  sword  comes  in,  and,  henceforward,  woe  to  the  weak  in 
their  struggles  against  the  strong ! 

From  this  period  Roman  civilization  may  be  considered  as  at  an 
end.  Society  passes  through  its  period  of  transition  and  begins  to 
present  itself  under  an  entirely  new  phase.  Slavery  in  its  ancient 
form  is  done  away,  but  social  servitude  is  still  continued.  The  con¬ 
querors  own  the  soil  from  which  the  inhabitants  must  obtain  their 
living.  The  former  want  retainers  whom  they  can  summon  at  the 
trumpet’s  warning  to  follow  and  fight  for  them  in  their  personal 
quarrels  with  other  chieftains,  or  it  may  be  with  royalty  itself. 
Hence,  protection  and  support  were  deemed  by  the  vanquished  as 
an  equivalent  for  labor,  military  service,  and  loss  of  freedom.  Hence, 
vassalage,  serfage,  fealty,  and  the  other  terms  of  feudalism,  which 
have  become  obsolete  under  the  present  form  of  civilization.  It 
was  during  these  times  of  ci\  il  anarchy  and  disorder  that  the  weak, 
particularly  among  the  princes  and  nobles,  who  had  right  on  their 
side,  without  might  to  support  it,  threw  themselves  on  the  protec¬ 
tion  of  the  Church,  and  particularly  of  her  chief  bishop,  the  only 


380 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


source  from  whicli  a  peaceful  decision  could  be  expected.  Hence, 
the  authority  used  by  the  Popes  was  not  a  usurpation  on  their 
part,  so  much  as  it  was  a  thing  forced  on  them  by  the  chiefs  of  na¬ 
tions  appealing  to  their  influence  in  hope  of  that  justice  which  could 
be  realized  from  no  other  quarter.  It  was  an  anomaly  growing  out 
of  the  social  disorganization  of  the  time,  and  in  the  nature  of  things 
must  pass  away,  as  in  fact  it  did,  when  the  causes  which  created  it 
ceased  to  exist.  But,  at  all  events,  it  is  now  admitted  among  learned 
men  of  every  creed,  that,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  the  authority 
of  the  Church  was  always  on  the  side  of  the  weak  against  the  strong, 
on  the  side  of  the  people  against  their  oppressors — the  invaders  of 
whatever  rights  they  had.  This  was  the  spirit  of  the  clergy,  from 
the  Pope  down  to  the  Acolyte,  in  their  relations  with  the  various 
classes  of  the  state,  from  the  peasant  up  to  the  monarch  on  his 
throne.  In  fact,  if  there  were  not  other  proof,  the  very  influence 
which  they  wielded  would  be  sufficient ;  because  it  was  founded  on 
the  confidence  of  the  j^eople,  and  that  confidence  never  could  have 
been  acquired  or  retained  if  they  had  not,  in  the  main,  proved  them¬ 
selves  worthy  of  it.  How  did  they  prove  this  towards  the  serfs,  or 
vassals,  the  representatives  of  social  servitude  in  the  middle  ages  ? 
Oh !  it  is  touching  to  see  with  what  charity,  what  zeal,  w'hat  ]3ru- 
dence  and  perseverance  they  distilled  the  gentle  influence  of  the 
Christian  spirit  into  the  breasts  of  their  masters,  until  the  frozen 
hearts  of  the  north  melted  into  humanity  and  pity  towards  their 
unhappy  dependants.  Among  their  most  distinguished  advocates 
and  deliverers,  dating  from  the  seventh  century,  may  be  enumerated 
the  saintly  Bathilde,  wife  of  Clovis  II.,  Charles  the  Bald,  Louis 
le  Gros,  Louis  VIII.,  the  good  Queen  Blanche,  and  her  son  St. 
Louis,  and  Louis  X,  Now  all  these  persons  \vere  acting  under  the 
spirit  inculcated  by  the  Church.  Servitude,  says  Ducange,  began 
to  disappear  insensibly;  moved  by  piety  and  mercy,  or  receiving  a 
pecuniary  compensation,  the  seigneurs  gave  full  liberty  to  their 
serfs,  but  they  requested  that  the  right  of  freedom  should  be  con¬ 
ferred  in  the  Church  and  by  the  Bishop — as  if,  says  he,  they  wished 
to  give  the  honor  to  religion  which  had  inspired  the  act. 

All  the  preaching  of  the  clergy  tended  to  inspire  this  pity  and 
mercy  tow'ards  the  serfs  of  wdiich  this  Avriter  speaks.  All  belie' ed 
in  the  importance  of  good  works,  to  salvation ;  and  at  the  head  of 
all  good  works,  during  those  ages,  stands  mercy  towards  prisoners 
and  slaves.  Hence,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  how  large  a  share  in 
their  gradual  emancipation  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  dogmas  of  the 
Church  ;  but  it  is  not  too  much  to  assert  that  among  those  who 
regard  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  as  a  superstition,  there  are  many 
wliose  ancestors  owed  their  elevation,  from  slavery  to  freedom,  to  that 
identical  doctrine ;  for  nothing  was  more  common  than  to  give  serfs 
for  the  consolation  of  a  soul  departed,  or  as  presented  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  or  St.  Peter — wdiich  ahvays  meant  giving  them  their  liberty, 
investing  them  with  the  rights  of  freedom.  The  provision  of  the 
Canon  law  which  forbade  the  alienation  of  church  jiroperty,  was 


LECTURE  ON  SO-L'IAL  SERVITUDE, 


OSl 


founded  on  the  idea  that  the  actual  incumbents  for  the  time  being, 
had  only  a  life  interest  in  the  use  of  it.  One-third  of  its  income  was  for 
the  support  of  the  poor,  one-third  for  the  repair  of  the  churches,  and 
the  remaining  third  for  their  personal  maintenance,  with  the  under¬ 
standing  that  even  the  surplus  of  this,  if  any,  belonged  to  the  poor. 
This  regulation  was  one  of  the  causes  of  their  wealth,  in  the  pro¬ 
gress  of  time.  But  the  same  authority  which  forbade  the  alienation 
of  church  property,  made  one  glorious  exception — and  the  law  did 
not  apply  if  the  money  resulting  from  such  alienation  was  for  the 
purpose  of  ransoming  slaves. 

It  was  in  this  spirit  that  St.  Exuperius,  Bishoji  of  Toulouse, 
actually  sold  the  sacred  vessels  of  his  church  to  apply  the  money 
to  the  purchase  of  their  freedom;  St.  Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Nola, 
went  so  far  when  pecuniary  resources  failed,  as  to  become  voluntarily 
a  slave  nimself  as  the  means  of  relieving  others ;  in  which  he  was 
successful.  Individual  instances  of  this  kind  were  common  over  the 
whole  length  and  breadth  of  Christendom.  Who  can  estimate  the 
influence  of  such  distinguished  examples,  on  governments  and 
legislation,  on  the  inferior  clergy  who  were  equally  devoted  in  their 
-sphere,  on  the  feudal  lords  themselves,  on  the  serfs,  on  the  whole 
mass  of  society  ! 

It  was,  no  doubt,  examples  like  these,  which,  acting  on  the  charities 
of  the  Christian  religion  on  their  own  hearts,  prompted  so  many  to 
unite  together  in  the  different  religious  orders  of  mercy,  having  for 
their  special  object  the  redemption  of  slaves,  the  instruction,  protec¬ 
tion  and  consolation  of  the  poor.  But  there  is  yet  more.  What 
would  be,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the 
minds  of  the  masters,  to  the  voluntary  enfranchisement  of  their 
slaves  ?  Assuredly,  the  loss  of  the  profits  arising  from  their  labor. 
If  then  you  could  diminish  those  labors,  you  would  of  coirrse  dimin¬ 
ish  his  profits,  and  with  them  his  interest  in  perpetuating  the  bondage. 
Xow  tins  is  precisely  what  the  Church  did — though  not  altogether 
for  this  purpose.  She  multiplied  religious  holidays.  This  took  from 
the  master  the  profits  of  labor  on  those  days,  and  imposed  on  him 
the  burthen  of  support.  Who  is  there  that  has  not  ridiculed  the 
many  holidays  recognized  in  the  Church,  and  yet  how  few  have  ever 
suspected  the  motive  of  mercy  towards  the  slaves,  to  which  in  part 
they  owed  their  origin. 

Thus  by  a  cornbinatian  of  influences,  all  of  them  taking  their 
source  in  the  charity  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  way  was  prepared 
and  the  work  gradually  accomplished  ;  so  that  at  the  beginning  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  there  was  hardly  a  vestige  of  slavery  on  the  map 
of  Europe,  except  in  Poland,  which  had  been  the  last  nation  convert¬ 
ed  from  Paganism,  and  in  Russia  which  had  been  already  separated 
from  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  in  which  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable, 
that  after  her  separation,  not  a  single  step  has  ever  been  made  to¬ 
wards  the  emancipation  of  her  serfs.  But  everywhere  else,  the 
whole  class  of  serfs  had  been  transmuted  into  the  first  elements  of 
what  has  since  constituted  the  middle  classes,  tenants  or  proprietors 


•S82 


ARCnBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  small  portions  of  the  land.  Tims  was  slavery  driven  out  of 
Europe  by  the  power  of  Christian  faith  and  of  Christian  feeling 
alone,  working  in  the  hearts  of  men.  Its  operation  proceeded 
slowly,  but  with  the  certainty  of  ultimately  accomplishing  its  ol\iect, 
and  without  producing  any  social  or  civil  convulsion. 

I  have  not  spoken  of  particular  nations,  as  my  object  has  been  to 
give  a  general  outline — as  the  time  would  not  suffice  for  entering 
into  detail.  Neither  v/as  the  action  of  the  clergy,  generally,  of  an 
authoritative  or  national  form.  But  thei’e  is  one  remarkable  instance 
of  this  kind  on  record,  and  a  large  portion  of  this  audience  would 
hardly  pardon  me  if  I  passed  it  over  in  silence.  It  is  taken  from  the 
celebrated  collection  of  the  Councils,  by  L’Abbe.  In  the  nation  to 
which  I  refer,  slavery  never  existed  among  the  native  population, 
for  it  never  had  been  conquered.  But  it  had  become  a  market  for 
the  sale  of  slaves  brought  from  other  lands,  until  that  unhappy 
statute,  prompted  by  the  same  religious  feelings  which  operated 
elsewhere,  its  bishops,  assembled  in  national  council,  proclaimed  the 
\miversai  and  simultaneous  emancipation  of  all  the  slaves  in  the  land. 
This  council  was  held  about  the  year  1050,  in  the  city  of  Waterford, 
in  Ireland.  May  we  not  hope  that  the  people  of  that  lovely  but  * 
unfortunate  land,  will  soon  be  able  to  do  for  themselves  what  they 
did  for  their  foreign  slaves  nearly  800  years  ago  ?  But  at  the  begin 
ing  of  the  sixteenth  century  almost  the  last  vestige  of  the  system  had 
already  disappeared  throughout  Europe  generally.  The  period  of 
the  transition  of  society  from  the  forms  of  the  middle  ages,  into 
those  of  modern  civilization,  had  begun  at  least  a  century  before. 
In  the  interval,  the  art  of  printing  had  been  invented,  and  Columbus 
discovered  a  new  Avorld,  in  the  midst  of  what  had  hitherto  been 
supposed  a  boundless  and  unbroken  ocean.  With  such  accessions  to 
the  means  of  human  improvement,  Avith  so  many  obstacles  to  it 
already  removed,  Avith  the  resurrection  of  literature  and  the  arts, 
Avhich  had  already  taken  place,  Avith  the  knoAvledge  of  gunpowder, 
the  use  of  the  compass,  and  the  first  practical  ideas  of  general 
manufacture  awakened  and  in  action,  however  feeble,  with  the 
avenues  of  commerce  opened,  the  rights  and  laws  of  nations 
established  on  a  Christian  basis,  these  nations  themseU'es  having 
their  separate  interests,  but  held  together  by  religious  bonds  Avhich 
constitute  them  but  as  different  members  of  the  same  Christian 
family — all  these  circumstances  Avould  seem  to  have  opened  a  vista 
of  unexampled  iinjArovement,  progression  and  happiness  for  the 
humati  race.  But  soon  after  this  period,  religious  differences  broke 
out,  and  a  large  portion  of  the  Church  Avas  rent  from  the  unity  of  the 
Avhole,  and  broken  into  fragments.  The  charities  of  religion  Avhich 
had  accomplished  so  much,  and  under  such  disadvantages,  during 
the  middle  ages,  were  now  unha})pily  chilled  and  Avithered  aAvay 
under  the  acrimonious  conflict  of  ideas,  and  language,  and  even 
armies,  of  Avhich  this  event  Avas  the  occasion,  if  not  the  cause.  I 
enter  not  into  the  theological  merits  of  the  dispute,  on  one  side  or 


LECTURE  OH  SOCIAL  SERVITUDE, 


383 


the  otlieii  •,  but  many  even  of  those  who  justify  it  on  theological 
grounds  admit  or  rather  contend  that  it  would  have  been  well  for 
society,  and  especially  for  the  condition  of  social  servitude  and 
the  poor  generally,  if  it  had  never  occurred.  Let  us  take  England  as 
an  example. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  accumulation  of  wealth  in  that  coun¬ 
try  during  the  three  centuries  that  h.ave  since  elapsed,  is  without  a 
parallel  in  the  history  of  the  world.  You  see  on  every  side  the  most 
cultivated  scenery  crowded  with  gorgeous  seats  and  fairy  palaces. 
On  every  side  are  profusely  collected  all  that  can  gratify  the  senses, 
charm  the  taste,  or  fill  the  cup  of  human  bliss,  so  far  as  happiness 
can  depend  on  outward  circumstances.  This  would  all  be  well  if 
there  were  no  poor  also,  or  if  God  had  created  this  earth  for  the 
rich  alone.  But,  without  entering  into  details,  it  has  been  establish¬ 
ed  by  innumerable  statistics  that  a  large  number  of  deaths  occuring 
among  the  poor,  so  immediately  connected  with  the  classes  of  social 
servitude,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  slow  starvation  ;  that  is,  to  such  a 
deterioration  or  diminution  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  as  brought  on 
or  aggravated  the  diseases  by  which  it  terminates.  This  is  a  sad 
reverse  to  the  picture  of  the  nation’s  prosperity — and  as  I  have 
already  trespassed  so  long  on  your  indulgence,  I  must  be  brief  in 
assigning  what  occurs  to  me  as  the  cause.  This  I  shall  derive  rather 
from  the  history  of  the  past  than  from  the  revulsions  and  commer¬ 
cial  iluctuations  of  the  present,  against  the  occurrence  of  which,  as 
an  occasion  of  crushing  any  portion  of  its  members,  society,  if  it 
deserve  the  name,  ought  to  be  always  provided  by  foresight  and 
precaution.  During  the  old  system,  religious  festivals,  on  which  labor 
was  suspended,  were  very  numerous — and  considering  Avhat  had 
been  the  condition  of  social  servitude,  the  provision  was  at  least  a 
humane  one.  There  was  a  time  when  England  was  not  the  only 
manufacturing  nation  of  Europe ;  Spain,  Italy,  Belgium,  and  France, 
had  already^  started  with  her  in  the  competition — and  France  was 
likely  to  have  proved  her  rival  had  it  not  been  for  the  revoca¬ 
tion  of  the  edict  of  Xantz.  But  England  crushed  them  all.  Of 
course,  for  mind,  energy  and  enterprise,  the  English  are  unsurpassed 
by  any  people  in  the  world.  But  in  the  earlier  history  of  manufac¬ 
tures,  they  had  another  advantage.  The  other  countries  continued 
to  observe  their  festivals  on  working  days  ; — whilst  she,  by  devoting 
forty  or  fifty  days  more  labor  annually  on  her  works — at  once  increas¬ 
ed  the  amount,  and  dimihished  the  cost  of  her  productions — so  that 
she  was  soon  enabled  to  undersell  thos-e  countries,  and  drive  them 
out  of  their  own  markets.  Thus  slie  became  a  monopolist  among 
nations.  This  naturally  drained  their  we.alth,  and  transferred  it  to 
HER  woi’kshops  ;  it  did  more — it  enabled  one  class  of  her  subjects 
to  wield  the  ])ower  of  cajfital  ag.ainst  another  class,  who  had  nothing 
to  oppose,  in  the  contest,  but  the  capacity  of  labor.  The  consequence 
was  and  is  now,  that  the  labor  and  life  of  the  working  classes  depend 
on  the  profits  or  losses  which  result  from  the  employmient  of  cai)ital, 
When  the  master,  for  such  he  is  in  everything  but  the  name,  finds  it 


mi 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


HIS  interest,  he  employs  them,  and  not  only  does  he  work  them  six 
days  ill  the  Aveek,  but  for  them  the  day  is  fourteen,  sixteen  and  even 
eighteen  hours  long.  By  this  he  increases  the  amount,  and  con¬ 
sequently  cheapens  the  price  of  their  toil,  and  we  read  from  official 
documents  that  even  thus,  they  can  hardly  earn  enough  to  i^rocure 
the  first  necessaries  of  life.  This  is  while  they  are  employed— and 
if  the  master  cannot  augment  his  capital,  he  dispenses  with  their 
labor  and  leaves  them  to  idleness  and  destitution  for  months  at  a 
time. 

But  it  is  only  from  the  reports  connected  Avith  the  poor  and  the 
])oor  laws,  that  one  can  form  any  idea  of  what  must  be  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  Avorking  classs.  Neither  is  this  feature  unconnected 
with  the  change  to  which  I  have  alluded.  Under  the  old  system 
there  Avere  no  poor  laws,  other  than  those  of  the  Gospel,  which 
Avere  expressed  in  the  simple  words,  “  this  is  my  commandment,  that 
you  love  one  another.”  But  then  it  was  ordained  and  understood, 
as  a  KELiGious  LAW,  that  the  one  third  of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues 
belonged  to  the  poor.  From  this  and  from  individual  charity  they 
obtained  relief,  SAveetened  to  them  by  the  very  kindness  Avitli  which 
it  AAoas  administered.  All  this  Church  property  was  seized  on  by  the 
government  and  squandered  in  the  expenditures  of  a  licentious 
monarch,  and  in  the  recompense  of  his  interested  and  cringing 
flatterers.  Hence,  the  foundation  of  the  enormous  wealth  and 
revenues  of  the  nobility  and  aristocracy,  of  the  present  day — who 
neAmr  think  of  the  poor,  except  when  the  progressi\m  accumula¬ 
tion  of  their  miseries  and  destitution  demands  the  imposition  of 
ncAV  taxes  for  their  support.  Nothing  can  better  attest  the  evils  to 
the  poor,  resulting  from  this  measure,  and  the  heartlessness  of  the 
nobles  Avho  seized  on  tlieir  patrimony,  than  the  provisions  of  an  act 
under  the  subsequent  reign  of  the  King  Edward  VI.  The  act  is 
directed  against  “  vagabondry” — and  after  stating  that  if  those  Avho 
are  guilty  of  it  “  should  be  punished  with  death,  Avhipping,  or 
imprisonment,  it  Avere  not  Avithout  their  deserts,  and  would  be 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Commonwealth it  goes  on  to  ordain  that 
any  person  idling  or  loitering  about,  for  three  days,  sliould  be  mark¬ 
ed  on  the  breast  Avith  a  hot  iron  with  the  letter  V — should  be  a 
slave  for  tavo  years, — and  should  he  run  aAvay  and  be  absent  four¬ 
teen  days,  during  that  time,  then,  “  he  should  be  a  slave  for  life.” 
In  the  same  spirit  of  legislation  the  aristocracy  have  contrived  to 
alter  the  laws  of  taxation  so  as  to  throAv  the  greater  part  of  the 
public  burthen  on  the  lower  and  less  Avealthy  classes,  until  at  the 
present  day,  Avhilst  the  wages  of  the  working  cksses  are  reduced, 
whilst  they  are  throAvn  out  of  employment,  the  v-ay  bread  Avhich 
they  e,at  is  made  dear  or  diminished  by  taxation. 

Noav  if  these  things  arc  so  to  an  extent  that  is  alarming  and 
almost  incredible,  in  the  richest  country  of  the  Avorld ;  and  if  God 
gaAm  variety  to  the  seasons,  and  fruitfulness  to  the  earth  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  all  its  inhabitants,  and  if  Avhat  is  said  here  be  true,  as  it  is, 
within  reduced  extremes  both  of  wealth  and  bounty,  of  all  ths 


LECTURE  ON  SOCIAL  SERVITUDE. 


38& 


Other  nations  of  Europe,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  great  and  cr<?  > 
ing  injustice  somewhere — that  the  true  relation  of  eights  aa4 
DUTIES,  extending  all  through  the  complicated  elements  of  society,  18 
not  understood  : — that  the  social  machine  has  lost  its  equilibrium  of 
right  motion,  owing  to  a  vicious  displacement  of  its  essential  weights 
and  balances,  and,  in  fine,  that  more  than  three  hundred  years  from  the 
period  when  in  the  transition  of  society  they  passed  from  the  con¬ 
dition  of  feudal  serfs  to  that  of  modern  freemen,  the  condition  of 
social  servitude  is  in  some  respects  less  tolerable  than  it  then  was.  In 
the  first  epoch  they  were  slaves,  dependent  on  the  absolute  will  of 
their  masters  ; — in  the  second  they  were  self-depending  on  the  soil, 
to  which  they  belonged,  for  their  support,  and  on  their  feudal 
lords  for  protection  ;  in  the  third  they  have  fallen  under  a  new  and 
undefined  power,  called  capital.  Neither  can  they  remove  their 
hardships  through  legislation — they  may  and  must  bear  what  is  im¬ 
posed  on  them,  but  they  can  have  no  voice,  at  least  in  those  countries, 
in  either  the  selection  or  distribution  of  the  burthen.  ^Is  there  any 
hope  for  the  peaceful  amelioration  of  their  condition  ?  There  are 
schools  of  speculation  or  social  philosophy,  who  say  that  there  is — 
and  pretend  to  show  how  it  may  be  accomplished.  But  for  my  own 
part,  knowing  that  whatever  amelioration  has  taken  place  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  whole  human  race  and  of  the  Avorld,  in  the  condition  of 
SOCIAL  SERVITUDE,  has  becH  wrought  out  by  the  principles  of  Christian¬ 
ity,  through  its  actions  on  the  human  heart,  I  have  little  confidence  in 
any  other  power.  Bring  from  the  pages  of  the  inspired  volume, 
those  lessons  of  Divine  wisdom  and  goodness  with  which  they 
abound — infuse  their  spirit  into  the  hearts  of  the  rich  and  powerfru 
until  you  overpower  the  avarice  and  selfishness  that  have  made  them 
obdurate  and  insensible ;  teach  them  to  love  money  less,  and  man¬ 
kind,  that  is,  their  own  nature,  more — and  if  they  will  learn  the 
heavenly  lesson,  in  practice  as  well  as  theory,  Christianity  shall 
again  have  occasi®n  to  exult  in  the  triumph  of  her  pi’inciples,  and 
the  world  itself  haAie  occasion  to  excl.iim,  as  in  ancient  days,  “  Behold 
how  they  love  one  another 


25 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


THE  NEW  YORK  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  DEBT 

ASSOCIATION. 

SPEECH  OF  BISHOP  HUGHES  AT  THE  MEETING  IN  CARROLL  HALL 

MAY  3,  1841. 

A  VERY  numerous  and  higlily  respectable  meeting  of  the  Catholics 
of  New  York  was .  held,  pursuant  to  requisition,  on  Monday 
evening.  May  the  3d,  in  Carroll  Hall.  Gregory  Uillon,  Esq.,  was 
unanimously  called  to  the  chair.  Mr.  B.  O’Connor  was  then 
appointed  seci'etary. 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  rose  to  address  the  meeting,  and 
was  received  with  deafening  applause.  After  reminding  the  audi¬ 
ence  that  the  meeting  had  been  convened  for  the  purpose  of  consid¬ 
ering  a  plan  for  extinguishing  the  debt  at  present  resting  on  the 
Catholic  churches  of  this  city,  the  Right  Rev,  gentleman  proceeded 
as  follows : — 

I  was  disposed  to  wait  until  a  large  number  might  be  present,  as 
I  am  about  to  submit  some  measures  of  a  general  and  important 
character,  but  as  the  evening  is  advancing,  I  deem  it  necessary  to 
proceed  to  unfold  to  you  the  views  I  have  to  present.  We  have 
hitherto  met  in  relation  chiefly  to  subjects  aflecting  interests  which 
might  be  discussed  without  requiring  any  future  action  in  relation 
to  them,  either  on  the  part  of  the  speaker  or  those  whom  they 
addressed.  It  is  not  so  at  present ;  for  the  subject  to  which  I  have 
now  to  invite  your  attention,  is  that  of  the  heavy  debts  Avhich 
oppress  the  churches  and  render  the  increase  of  suitable  temples 
for  worshiji  altogether  too  slow  for  the  wants  of  the  people.  I 
have  a  plan  to  propose  which  has  in  vicAv  the  relief  of  those  churches 
from  the  heavy  burdens  under  Avhich  they  labor,  but  that  plan  can¬ 
not  have  its  proper  efiiciency  unless  it  have  scope  and  the  deter¬ 
mined  will  of  those  for  Avhose  benefit  it  is  jiroposed.  It  is  for  this 
reason  I  should  have  wished  that  the  meeting  had  been  more 
numerous. 

Before  proceeding  further,  I  shall  allude  to  the  progress  of  another 
subject  which  has  an  attraction  to  the  meeting.  It  is  the  progress 
of  our  claim  to  the  Fund  to  which  we  are  contributors.  Of  the 
fate  of  the  application  to  the  Common  Council  in  this  City,  all  are 
aware,  and  Ave  all  know  that  the  voice  and  tone  of  our  first  meeting 
after,  was  as  spirited  as  the  one  before  the  denial  but  not  the  defeat 
of  our  claim  [cheers],  and  that  our  sentiments  were  expressive  of 
the  sense  of  justice  Avhich  must  actuate  the  men  aaRo  had  yet  to 
decide  on  that  claim,  Avho  had  the  Avelfare  of  the  people  at  heart. 

Our  confidence  in  them  has  not  been  disappointed.  A  Report 
has  been  made  by  the  officer  of  the  State  to  Avhom  the  subject  was 
referred,  and  it  is  gratifying  to  know  that  every  principle  of  justice, 
equality  and  fair  play  of  the  American  Constitution  has  been  .«aDC- 
tioned  by  this  high  authority  of  the  American  People.  [Cheers.] 
Yet,  as  I  have  heretofore  expressed  to  you,  it  is  not  always  justice 


CHTJECH  DEBT  ASSOCIATION. 


38^ 

which  triumphs  in  assemblies,  for  there  may  be  those  within  tltem 
who  will  cling  pertinaciously  to  their  own  narrow  views,  and 
endeavor  to  effect  what  they  conceive  to  be  a  great  good,  no  mat¬ 
ter  how  others  should  suffer.  It  is  therefore  necessary  until  success 
IS  assured,  that  we  should  have  our  minds  fixed  upon  it,  for  as  long 
as  the  human  voice  can  be  animated  by  the  sound  of  justice  we  shall 
continue  to  cry  for  our  rights.  [Cheers.]  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
speak  to  you  in  detail,  of  the  debt  of  the  churclies  and  the  effect  of 
that  debt  upon  our  interests,  and  the  prospective  interests  of  that 
rising  generation  which  is  coming  forward,  and  to  whom  constant 
attention  must  be  directed. 

If  we  had  our  churches  filled  on  Sunday  there  must  still  be  one 
half  that  cannot  enter  the  Temple  of  God.  There  is  not  at  present 
sufficient  room  for  those  who  would  attend  if  they  had  the  opportu¬ 
nity.  Sometime  ago  this  building  was  purchased,  and,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  churches  in  its  neighborhood,  there  is  no  doubt  that  if 
provided  with  the  necessary  pastors,  there  would  be  more  than 
enough  to  fill  it ;  but  then  it  has  been  found  that  opening  this  and 
adding  another  church  for  the  accomm.odation  of  the  people,  would 
so  injure  the  church  immediately  adjoining,  that  it  must  be  left  to 
some  other  more  favorable  time  when  such  an  effect  is  no  longer  to 
be  dreaded.  Such  is  the  lamentable  state  of  affairs  in  this  respect, 
that  the  measure  of  responsibility  is  full  to  the  brim,  and  if  one 
drop  more  is  put  in,  it  overflows.  If  on  account  of  the  debts 
uucfer  which  they  labor,  any  of  the  churches  should  be  sold 
or  disposed  of,  it  leaves  a  vacancy  that  cannot  be  filled,  and  will 
it  be  permitted  that  our  churches  shall  forever  remain  under  the 
dominion  of  creditors  ?  Tliis  state  of  things  Avoiild  be  entirely 
changed,  if  with  united  energy  we  could  act  upon  some  well- 
digested  plan  ;  we  could  then  in  a  short  time  add  church  to 
church,  and  so  keep  pace  Avith  the  Avants  of  our  increasing  Catholic 
population. 

We  can  never  expect  success  unless  there  be  concert  and  unity  of 
action.  Every  man  should  feel  that  he  has  an  individual  interest  in 
tins  cause,  and  act  conscious  of  being  engaged  in  a  good  work.  For 
that  was  surely  a  good  Avork  which  facilitated  to  mankind  the  means 
of  their  becoming  acquainted  Avith  their  God  and  his  mercies,  and 
enabling  them  to  realize  Avith  greater  certainty  the  end  of  their  crea¬ 
tion.  [Cheers.]  But  besides  all  this,  ray  friend^,  you  know,  or 
should  know,  that  in  diminishing  the  capital  for  Mdiieh  your  church 
es  stand  indebted,  you  are  relieving  yourself  of  that  continual  drain 
of  money  which  year  after  year  comes  out  of  your  purses.  Go  on 
as  at  present,  and  at  the  end  of  ten  years  you  Avill  have  paid  an 
amount  equal  to  tAvo-thirds  of  the  whole  debt !  That  is,  supposing 
the  debt  to  be  1300,000,  the  interest  on  that  |300,000  Avill  in  ter 
years  amount  to- $200,000,  and,  after  all,  at  the  end  of  the  ten  years 
the  $300,000  of  debt  will  bo  still  staring  you  in  the  face  as  to-day  ! 
Consequently,  then,  this  is  not  only  a  good  Avork  in  a  spiritual  and 
»*«liij:ious  sense,  but  it  is — judging  according  to  the  wisdom  of  thB 


888 


ARCnBICnOP  HFGIIES. 


world — it  is  your  interest  and  advantage  ;  for  the  debt  must  be  paid 
and  who  must  pay  it  but  you,  Catholics  ? 

There  is  another  point  of  view,  too,  in  which  the  plan  I  am  about 
to  suggest  will  appear  worthy  of  support  and  confidence.  At  pres¬ 
ent,  whenever  a  pressure  comes  upon  a  church,  and  a  creditor  stands 
waiting  for  his  money,  the  trustees  must  either  borrow  and  displace 
him  by  another  creditor,  or  they  must  address  themselves  to  the  con¬ 
gregation,  and  in  the  congregation  there  are  some  dozen  or  two 
dozen  or  three  dozen  of  men  more  liberal  perhaps,  or  more  conspic¬ 
uous,  and  to  them  every  eye  is  immediately  directed,  while  there 
are  numerous  other  professors  of  their  creed,  who  need  the  services 
of  religion,  and  are  perhaps  willing  to  contribute  if  in  a  way  availa¬ 
ble  to  the  end,  who  are  overlooked  altogether.  The  burden  falls  on 
a  few,  and  in  these  isolated  efforts  many  are  never  called  on  at  all. 
Now,  my  project  would  be  made  to  extend  itself,  in  such  a  manner 
that  every  Catholic  in  the  city  of  New  York,  possessed  of  ability, 
should  contribute,  and  that  those  unwilling,  being  able,  should  also 
be  on  record.  [Cheers.]  Not  that  I  would  force  the  matter,  nor 
do  I  think  that  that  would  be  at  all  necessary.  But  yet  I  do  say  that 
that  man  who  is  able  to  support  his  refigion  with  a  moderate  sum, 
who  has  no  fair  pretext  for  not  doing  so,  and  who  wishes  the  presence 
of  his  clergy  in  his  family  whenever  necessary,  and  has  the  consola¬ 
tion  of  attending  the  public  religious  service  of  his  church,  and  yet 
is  unwilling  to  share  in  supporting  his  religion,  fails  in  a  moral  and 
religious  duty,  and  it  should  be  known  that  such  a  man  refused  to 
support  the  church  of  his  brethren.  [Cheers.] 

We  spoke  at  a  former  meeting  of  two  plans.  The  one  recommend¬ 
ing  each  of  the  churches,  in  its  sphere,  to  try  what  it  could  do — 
the  other,  of  a  more  Catholic  nature,  embracing  all  the  churches  on 
his  Island,  and  in  Brooklyn,  if  they  choose  to  join  us.  As  this  lat¬ 
ter  view  appeared  to  be  received  with  the  greatest  favor,  and  as  others 
speaking  with  me  on  the  subject  have  expressed  their  opinion  that  it 
was  the  only  available  and  efficient  mode,  I  have  arranged  a  plan 
which  I  shall  presently  have  the  pleasure  of  submitting  to  this  meet¬ 
ing.  [Cheers.]  However,  I  mentioned  then,  what  I  have  now  to  re¬ 
peat,  that  in  anything  of  this  kind,  men  must  take  large  views  of 
the  subject,  otherwise  it  will  not  succeed  as  we  anticipated.  I  may, 
for  instance,  happen  to  belong  to  a  particular  church — as  a  private 
member  of  the  church,  or  even  as  a  pastor — that  hajipens  to  be  in 
better  circumstances  than  others,  and  I  may  say,  “  Oh  !  we  are 
happy,  well  off,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  exert  ourselves.”  Now 
if  any  man  say  that,  that  man  is  not  fit  to  appreciate  my  plan,  for 
he  is  no  Catholic  in  his  feelings.  The  Catholic  is  of  a  large  soul 
and  a  liberal  mind — does  not  set  geographical  limits  between  this 
quarter  of  the  city  and  that ;  and  he  who  acts  differently,  why,  I 
must  say  that  a  Catholic  heart  does  not  beat  in  his  bosom.  [Cheers.] 
To  make  this  plan  efficient,  then,  you  must  be,  not  so  many 
difiTerent  congregations,  but  one  congregation  having  a  number  of 
churches  under  its  care,  and  possessed  of  that  determination  to  go 


CHUKCn  DEBT  ASSOClAlTOlSr. 


a89 


In  with  that  unity  of  effort  wliich  will  alone  relieve  our  churches. 
And.  after  all,  even  in  point  of  reasoning  the  argument  of  the  man  I 
have  just  now  supposed  would  not  be  a  good  one.  Why  ?  Because 
although  lie  happens  to  belong  this  year  to  a  church  in  affluent  cir¬ 
cumstances,  next  year  he  moves  nearer  to  a  church  precisely  in  the 
state  to  which  he  was  before  indifierent,  for  there  is  no  fixedness  of 
residence,  and  men  change  their  churches  as  they  change  their  habi¬ 
tation,  and  even  in  this  point  of  view  he  has  no  good  reason  for  ma¬ 
king  the  exception.  But  I  will  not  suppose  such  a  case  at  all.  I 
shall  rather  sujipose  that  if  the  plan  be  found  practicable — worthy 
of  your  approbation,  that  nothing  will  be  found  to  mar  the  harmony 
and  beauty  of  its  action  until  it  has  accomplished  the  end  for  Mfflich 
it  is  now  about  to  be  submitted.  [Loud  cheers.] 

Another  great  object  to  be  attended  to,  and  which  I  have  kept  in 
view  to  the  best  of  my  power  in  arranging  my  plan,  is  simplicity. 
This  undertaking  is  something  on  a  large  scale,  as  you  perceive,  and 
any  plan  for  its  accomplishment  must  be  one  in  which  the  machinery 
hall  be  as  simple  as  possible,  so  that  a  child  may  understand  its 
working.  If  you  M^ere  to  make  it  complicated  with  a  great  many 
iles  and  regulations,  you  would  find  that  these  would  overlay  and 
obscure  the  principal  object,  and  therefore  I  have  studied  the  utmost 
simplicity  in  the  arrangement  of  the  present  plan.  With  that 
simplicity,  however,  is  combined  adequate  means  for  accomplishing 
the  end  in  view,  and,  as  I  have  said  before,  it  will  only  require  the 
action  of  each  one  in  his  particular  s>ituation'  and  according  to  the 
duty  Ave  have  all  to  perform,  to  realize  all  that  we  anticipate.  Not 
at  once,  indeed,  but  with  time,  which  is  a  powerful  agent  in  all  great 
undertakings.  To  give  you  an  outline  of  my  plan,  it  will  bring  every 
Catholic  into  action — every  one.  There  is  a  division  of  action.  There 
are  those  who  are  to  be  contributors  who  have  their  part  of  the  plan  to 
cai’ry  out,  in  giving  either  yearly  or  monthly  what  they  feel  able  to 
ofl:er,  and  what  their  generous  spirit  will  prompt  them  to  give  to¬ 
wards  this  end,  from  those  who  may  give  a  shilling  a  mouth  to  any 
higher  sum.  And  I  question  if  there  be  any  one  in  health  so  poor 
as  to  be  unable  to  contribute  a  shilling  a  month — I  doubt  if  there 
be  any  such,  and  if  there  be,  it  is  because  they  either  do  not  husband 
the  fruits  of  their  industry,  or  are  overtaken  by  sickness  or  some 
calamity  which  requires  another  direction  of  the  means  they  possess. 
But  Avhilst  one  may  give  a  shilling,  another  may  give  a  dollar,  and 
another  may  make  every  member  of  his  family  contribute  a  shilling 
— anotlier  may  contribute  one  hundred  dollars,  or  fifty  dollars,  or 
ten  dollars,  according  as  God  has  prospered  his  undertakings.  But 
then  who  are  to  call  upon  them  for  their  contributions  ? 

That  is  another  branch  of  the  division  of  labor.  Those  who  will 
contribute  will  be  called  upon  once  a  month  by  persons  duly  author¬ 
ized  for  thaft  purpose,  and  they  are  to  meet  periodically  to  make  re¬ 
turns  to  another  class  of  persons,  and  these  again  to  a  third  ;  and 
every  montli  there  is  to  be  a  meeting  in  this  Hall  of  all  the  Catho¬ 
lics,  and  to  them  will  be  presented,  in  the  form  of  a  synopsis,  an 


«90 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


account  of  all  the  proceedings  during  the  previous  month  of  those 
officers  referred  to ;  and  thus  you  may  see  that  I  have  taken  particular 
pains  not  to  oppress  anyone  with  too  much  labor.  If  collectors  were 
appointed  and  indefinite  labor  devolved  upon  them,  they  will  go  on 
with  a  little  spirit  for  a  short  time,  but  never  seeing  the  end  of  their 
work,  they  will  get  discouraged  and  remit  their  exertions.  But  if 
you  divide  their  labor  so  that  they  may  fulfill  their  task,  then  it  is 
to  be  hoped  that  there  will  be  found  persons  who  for  the  merit  of 
the  work  itself,  and  for  the  satisfaction  of  their  being  instrumental 
in  relieving  the  churches  from  their  present  embarrassment,  will  go 
tl] rough  with  this  labor.  It  will  be  also  an  honor  to  them.  Because 
the  books  recording  these  proceedings  will  remain  a  monument  to 
future  generations,  of  the  zeal  and  faith  of  the  men  who  first  built 
and  worshipped  in  these  temples  of  the  living  God !  [Cheers.] 

I  have  taken  care,  then,  to  divide  the  labor.  So,  here  are  two 
classes,  one  having  to  contribute  periodically  according  to  their 
means,  another  having  to  call  for  that  contribution,  and  their  ac¬ 
counts  to  be  inspected  by  another  class  again.  Then,  again,  the 
subject  is  to  be  kept  constantly  before  the  public — it  is  not  to  be 
lost  sight  of.  It  will  not  do  for  us  to  be  actuated  by  a  lively  spirit 
of  zeal  for  once  or  twice  or  thrice  at  a  public  meeting,  and  then  to 
allow  the  undertakine:  to  sink  from  our  view.  In  such  a  case  it 

O  ^ 

would  be  useless  to  ])roceed.  But  in  order  to  keep  it  constantly 
before  the  public,  there  will  be  meetings  monthly  in  this  hall  of  all 
the  collectors,  and  of  all  the  superintendents  of  districts  into  which 
the  city  is  to  be  divided,  and  they  will  compare  their  returns,  and 
lay  before  you  an  account  of  the  progress  and  success  of  their  labors 
from  month  to  month.  Thus  the  subject  will  be  kept  constantly 
luTore  the  public,  and,  at  the  same  time,  encouragement  will  be  af¬ 
forded  to  ttiose  engaged  in  the  work.  [Cheers.] 

But  there  is  another  point  also,  not  unimportant.  And  that  is 
the  exactitude  and  security»with  regard  to  the  disposal  of  the  mon¬ 
eys  received  ;  and,  accordingh^,  I  have  taken  pains  in  arranging  my 
plan,  for  the  observance  of  the  greatest  precision  and  exactitude  in 
reference  to  the  amount  received  from  its  first  collection  from  the 
man  who  gives  his  one  dollar,  or  ten  dollars,  or  fifty  or  a  hundred 
dollars,  up  to  the  Trustees,  who  shall  see  to  its  appropriation  to  the 
specific  object  for  which  it  was  contributed,  and  by  which  means  every 
man  shall  have  his  voucher  for  the  proper  distribution  of  the  money. 

These  are  the  outlines  of  the  plan.  There  is  nothing  required  but 
understanding  the  subject,  and  zeal  and  perseverance,  and  with  that 
understanding,  and  that  zeal,  and  that  perseverance,  I  have  not  the 
slightest  doubt,  that,  incredible  as  it  may  now  appear,  at  the  end  of 
four  years  from  this  time  the  debt  on  the  Catholic  churches  would 
be  next  to  nothing  at  all.  [Loud  cheers.]  If  you  saw  that  event 
accomplished,  then  how  easy  would  it  be,  whenever  a  church  was 
wanted,  to  erect  one — 1  do  not  say  magnificent  churches — 1  do  not 
speak  of  splendid  ones — but  I  speak  of  those  that  would  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  respectable  for  the  design  to  which  they  would  be  appropri- 


CHURCH  DEBT  ASSOCIATIO^T. 


39i 


ated,  and  in  harmony  with  the  means  and  wants  of  the  people  for 
whose  use  they  are  to  be  erected.  Now  I  know  that  all  the  churches 
.e  not  equally  in  debt.  But,  then,  if  you  made  a  collection  merely 
/or  the  churches  most  in  debt,  others  would  not  feel  the  same  in¬ 
terest.  The  effort  would  cease  to  be  general,  and  the  moment  it 
ceases  to  be  general,  that  moment  the  principle  of  its  success  is  lost. 

To  succeed,  then,  the  effort  must  be  general— it  must  reach  to  all 
W'ho  a])preciate  the  value  of  religion,  and  possess  the  means  to  aid 
its  progress.  [Cheers.] 

]jefore  reading  to  you  the  plan  which  I  have  drawn  out,  I  have 
to  state  that  I  have  taken  a  precaution,  which  you  yourselves  will 
see  to  have  been  at  once  necessary  and  proper.  That  precaution 
consisted  in  calling  the  clergymen  of  the  city  together,  and  submit¬ 
ting  the  matter  to  them,  precisely  as  I  do  to  you,  and  as  it  must 
strike  every  man  who  is  solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  Church — 
told  them  what  is  obvious,  that  if  they  did  not  take  the  matter  to 
heart,  as  I  do,  it  would  be  entirely  useless  for  me  to  proceed  further. 
I  can  do  but  little  without  their  help.  But  with  them,  each  one  in 
the  centre  of  his  circle,  a  great  deal  can  be  done.  And  I  therefore 
thouglit  it  essential  to  the  success  of  the  plan  that  they  should  hear 
it,  weigh  it,  understand  it,  and  that  they  should  adopt  it  willingly. 
And  I  must  say  they  did  so,  not  only  willingly,  but  with  a  zeal 
worthy  of  their  sacred  vocation.  [Loud  cheers.]  The  plan  has 
been  unanimously  adopted  by  them,  and  they  have  pledged  them¬ 
selves  by  their  written  signatures,  to  act  by  its  requirements,  and 
, labor  for  the  attainment  of  the  end  proposed  by  it  so  long  as  there 
yet  remains  anything  to  be  accomplished  for  its  attainment.  [Con¬ 
tinued  cheers.] 

But  all  this  will  not  suffice,  unless  you  also  enter  on  this  imder- 
taking  with  the  same  spirit.  For  it  is  not  altogether  the  place  of 
the  clergy  to  be  talking  of  financial  affairs — of  money,  interest  and 
so  on.  This  is  not  our  calling — God  has  called  us  to  a  spiritual 
calling ;  nevertheless,  placed  in  our  present  circumstances,  and  bound 
to  labor  in  every  way  calculated  to  give  efficiency  to  our  spiritual 
labors,  wliy  should  Ave  not  embark  in  this  imdertaking  with  the 
same  zeal  as  we  would  in  any  other  good  work.  But  it  would  be 
odious  and  useless  in  us  to  put  ourselves  forward  to  an  unwilling 
peo})le.  You  must  be  a  willing  people.  You  must  be  ready  to  as¬ 
sist  us.  You  must  be  ready  to  open  your  doors  for  us  as  soon  as  you 
see  us,  though  perfectly  aware  of  the  object  of  our  visit.  It  could 
not  be  supposed  that  we  would  force  ourselves  on  you,  in  a  matter 
in  which  you  are  far  more  deei)ly  interested  than  Ave.  We  are  but 
insiguiffcant  persons- -our  Avants  are  feAvq  and  will  always  be  sup¬ 
plied — and  Ave  could  easily  pass  through  the  short  period  of  our  la¬ 
bors  in  this  life  without  taking  on  us  tlie  toil  and  trouble  necessarily 
attending  a  Avork  of  this  kind.  But  we  do  engage  in  this  Avork,  in 
the  contidence  that  we  are  doing  a  good  Avork  for  you,  and  your 
brethren  who  are  here  and  avIio  are  to  come  hereafter — for  your 
'•hildren  and  your  children’s  children,  to  endless  ages.  [Loud  ap- 


492 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


plaiise.]  For  work  connected  with  religion  is  everlasting  work.  It 
is  not  like  all  temporal  works — completed  to-day  and  jxjrished  to¬ 
morrow  ! 

It  is  not  then  enough  that  the  plan  has  the  approbation  of  the 
clergy  without  exception.  It  is  necessary  that  it  should  be  adopted 
by  the  people,  and  if  not  adopted  by  them,  certainly  we  will  not 
present  ourselves  to  a  people  unwilling  to  see  us.  [Cheers.] 

I  will  now  read  to  you  the  title,  preamble  and  rules  of  an  associa- 
on,  which  it  is  proposed  should  embrace  the  clergy  and  whole  Cath- 

C  population  of  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn.  [Cheers.] 

THE  NEW  YORK  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  DEBT  ASSOCIATION. 

Whereas,  the  indebtedness  and  embarrassed  situation  of  the 
C,atholic  Churches  of  New  York  is  attended  with  two  principal 
evil  consequences,  viz. : — the  one  making  it  a  matter  of  great  diffi¬ 
culty  and  exertion  to  meet  the  interest  and  expenses  of  churches  al¬ 
ready  erected ;  the  other  making  it  almost  impossible  to  erect  new 
ones,  even  when  they  become  absolutely  necessary  to  meet  the  reli¬ 
gious  wants  of  our  rapidly  increasing  Catholic  population.  And, 
whereas,  it  is  a  religious  duty  incumbent  on  us  to  provide  that  tem¬ 
ples  erected  by  ourselves,  and  now  dedicated  to  the  service  of  Al¬ 
mighty  God,  should  be  rescued  from  the  danger  of  profanation  by 
passing,  like  secular  property,  into  the  hands  of  creditors.  And, 
whereas,  even  in  a  temporal  pomt  of  view  it  is  not  only  just  that  we 
should  pay  our  debts,  but  it  is  also  advantageous  to  ourselves  that 
we  should  be  relieved  from  the  exhausting  drain  of  annual  interest^ 
by  the  extinguishment  or  diminution  of  the  capital  for  which  our 
churches  are  indebted.  And,  whereas,  it  is  the  opinion  of  those 
who  have  examined  the  subject  that  this  most  important  and  desira¬ 
ble  end  can  be  attained  within  the  space  three  or  four  years,  by 
a  hearty,  zealous  and  general  co-ojierati*,.^  x--  all  the  Catholics  of  the 
city  through  the  means  of  a  well-devised  organization  for  that  pur¬ 
pose.  Therefore, — The  following  plan  is  submitted  for  approval : 

1.  As  the  object  is  to  unite  all  the  Catholics  of  New  York  in  a 
general  effort  to  relieve  the  churches  by  voluntary  contribution,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  means  of  each,  the  city  shall  be  divided  into  dis- 
a’icts,  corresponding  with  the  number  and  location  of  the  Catholic 
churches ;  and  the  Pastor  in  each  district,  aided  by  the  assistant 
Pastors  and  Trustees,  shall  be  charged  with  carrjdng  out  the  system 
of  contribution  within  the  limits  of  such  district. 

2.  The  Pastor  Avith  his  assistants  shall  subdivide  his  district  into 
sections — each  section  so  small  that  an  active  collector  may  be  able 
to  visit  every  Catholic  house  or  roomholder  in  each  once  in  the 
month  by  giving  an  average  of  one  hour  a  day  for  that  purpose. 

3.  The  Pastor  shall  appoint  two  collectors  over  each  section  in 
his  district.  They  should  be  persons  of  good  moral  and  religious 
character,  who  having  only  a  given  amount  of  duty  to  perform,  will 
enter  on  it  with  zeal  and  discharge  it  Avith  ffiithfulness  and  assiduity 


CHURCH  DEBT  ASSOCIATION. 


393 


as  a  work  of  charity  done  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  promotion 
of  our  holy  religion. 

4.  The  Pastor  shall  supply  them  with  a  book,  specially  prepared 
for  that  purpose,  and  adapted  to  the  easy  record  of  names,  residence 
and  contribu  ions. 

5.  The  collectors  shall  first  find  out  and  record  the  name  and  resi¬ 
dence  of  each  head  of  family  (with  the  number  of  persons  composing 
the  family)  occupying  a  house  or  rooms  in  the  section,  and  make  re¬ 
turns  of  the  same  to  the  Pastor  and  Superintendent  of  the  district. 
It  will  then  be  their  duty  to  wait  on  each  Catholic  resident  in  their 
section,  and  receive  for  the  purposes  of  this  association  yearly  or 
monthly  contributions. 

6.  These  contributions  the  collectors  will  set  down  opposite  to 
the  name  of  each  contributor  ;  and  during  the  first  week  of  each 
month,  they  will  hand  over  to  the  Pastor  of  the  district  the  amount 
collected  during  the  month  previous.  They  will  receive  in  the  same 
book  and  on  the  same  page  his  receipt  for  the  amount,  which  they 
may  show  to  the  contributors  on  their  next  monthly  visit.  This 
will  go  to  inspire  the  people  with  that  confidence  on  which  the  suc¬ 
cess  of  the  undertaking  so  much  depends. 

7.  The  Pastors  will  in  the  second  week  of  each  month  hand  over 
the  amount  received  by  them  from  the  collectors  of  sections,  to  the 
Bishop  as  head  of  this  association,  or  to  some  other  person  who  shall 
be  accountable  for  the  same  at  the  end  of  each  quarter.  He  shall 
give  a  receipt  in  the  bonk  of  the  Pastors,  in  the  same  manner  as 
they  do  in  the  books  of  the  collectors  of  sections. 

8.  On  the  fourth  Monday  of  each  month  there  shall  be  a  public 
meeting  of  the  President,  the  Superintendent  of  districts,  the  Col¬ 
lectors  of  sections,  and  the  Catholic  public  generally,  in  Carroll  Hall, 
at  which  the  collectors  shall  report  the  amount  received  in  their 
various  sections — the  superintendents  of  districts  the  amount  re¬ 
ceived  from  their  several  districts,  and  the  President  the  amount  re¬ 
ceived  from  the  several  superintendents  during  the  month  previous. 

9.  There  are  a  very  great  many  of  our  Catholics  who  are  not 
householders,  and,  of  course,  do  not  come  under  the  foregoing  clas¬ 
sification.  They  are  among  the  most  able  and  willing  to  contribute 
to  this  object.  They  are  unmarried  mechanics,  domestics,  and  work¬ 
ing  men.  Now,  as  the  object  of  this  association  is  to  include  every 
Catholic  in  the  city,  in  an  effort  which  is  for  the  benefit  of  all,  some 
mode  must  be  adopted  by  which  these  persons  will  have  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  conti  ibuting.  It  will  be  for  the  pastors  and  superinten¬ 
dents  of  districts  to  arrange  the  means  necessary  to  obtain  their 
contributions.  A  good  plan  would  be  to  have  a  table  and  books  in 
the  vestibule  or  some  other  convenient  place  of  the  church  on  Sundays, 
where  they  could  subscribe  their  names  and  make  their  offerings. 

10.  All  such  moneys  shall  be  set  down  under  a  separate  head  and 
be  accounted  for  by  receipts  from  one  to  another,  the  same  as  that 
returned  by  collectors  of  sections. 


394 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHRS. 


11.  The  President  shall  preserve  the  moneys  handed  over  to  him, 
Rnd  for  which  he  shall  have  given  receipts,  until  the  quarterly  meet- 
sag,  at  which  time  the  general  quarterly  report  shah  be  read,  and 
if  expedient  printed.  All  the  moneys  collected  during  the  quarter 
shah  be  distributed  to  the  Trustees  of  the  churches,  for  the  sole  pur¬ 
pose  of  diminishing  by  so  much  the  capital  of  the  debt  on  the 
church  of  which  they  are  Trustees,  and  for  no  other  purpose  whatever, 

12.  — Distribution.  The  President  shall  within  the  first  month  of 
each  succeeding  quarter  pay  over  the  proceeds  of  the  previous  quar¬ 
ter’s  collection  share  and  share  alike  to  the  trustees  of  the  severa. 
churches,  and  receive  their  receipts  for  the  same. 

13  But  as  new  debts  might  be  contracted  as  fast  as  means  could 
he  collected,  if  no  precaution  were  taken  against  it,  the  several 
•boards  of  trustees  shall  give  a  statement  of  the  amount  of  their  in¬ 
debtedness,  with  the  understanding  that  no  new  engagement  shall 
1  entered  into  by  them  whilst  they  continue  to  receive  anything 
from  this  association. 

14.  In  order  to  give  more  efficiency  to  this,  association,  no  private 
collection,  fair,  oratorio,  or  other  expedient,  shall  be  had  for  any  of 
the  churches  for  the  benefit  of  which  this  association  is  organized. 

15.  But  as  the  religious  wants  of  the  people  may  require  addi¬ 
tional  churches  in  some  localities  during  the  existence  of  this  asso¬ 
ciation,  if  the  clergyman  to  be  appointed  over  such  a  work  can  raise 
among  the  population  desiring  or  requiring  such  new  church,  one- 
fourth  of  its  cost  in  cash,  then  from  the  proceeds  of  the  burial  ground 
attached  to  the  Cathedral  this  fourth  shall  be  increased  to  one-third, 
provided  the  amount  do  not  exceed  three  thousand  dollars  in  any  one 
year.  As  no  church  shall  in  future  be  consecrated  which  shall  be 
indebted  for  more  than  one-third  its  entire  cost. 

16.  The  President  and  Pastor  shall  sign  their  names ;  the  Trus¬ 
tees  of  the  churches  shall  affix  their  corporate  seals  to  these  rules  of 
the  association.  They  shall  likewise  be  adopted  by  the  vote  of  this 
public  meeting  as  representing  the  difisrent  congregations  of  the 
city,  and  such  signature,  seal  and  adoption  shall  be  as  a  solemn 
pledge  of  Catholic  Union  and  Catholic  Honor;  by  which  as  one 
people,  we  bind  ourselves  to  each  other  to  adhere  to  this  associa¬ 
tion  and  to  discharge  faithfully  the  duties  assigned  respectively,  un¬ 
til  every  church  in  the  city  shall  be,  if  not  entirely  out  of  debt,  at 
least  out  of  all  danger  of  being  profaned  by  passing  under  the  do¬ 
minion  of  creditors.  Then,  indeed,  with  the  blessings  of  God  our 
religion  shall  prosper,  and  new  temples  unencumbered  shall  spring 
up  as  rapidly  as  they  shall  be  required.  All  ihis  we  can  accomplish, 
and  the  day  of  its  accomplishment  will  be  a  glorious  day  for  the 
Catholics  in  New  York  and  in  America. 

The  Bishop  having  read  the  above  preamble  and  rules  for  the  as- 
sociatior.,  said, 

Nov,  connected  with  all  this  there  are  at  least  a  thousand  ques- 
tionf  that  might  be  asked,  the  discussion  of  which  would  be  per¬ 
fectly  useless,  because  you  have  there  the  bone  aud  muscle  of  the 


CUURCII  DEBT  ASSOCIATION’. 


SO*: 

rvlwi,  and  it  only  remains  for  those  who  will  have  embraced  it  to 
elothe  it  with  what  is  necessary  to  make  it  perfect  symmetry  and 
&,nd  perfect  beauty.  For  instance,  it  might  be  said,  that  a  church — 
suppose  one  of  the  German  churches,  or  one  lately  built, — one  that 
owes  $1,600  will  have  an  equal  share  with  one  that  $30,000.  Now, 
I  will  try,  if  possible,  to  explain  a  little,  how  this,  notwithstanding 
?jiy  a{)pareiit  disadvantage,  comes  in  reality  to  promote  the  common 
Vaterest  of  all  churches,  no  matter  how  situated.  Suppose  that  there 
ra'c  tea  churches  that  will  derive  benefit  from  the  funds,  then  the 
first  division  of  money  may  pay  the  debt  of  one  and  accordingly  on 
tba  next  periodical  division  of  the  funds,  the  share  of  that  one  will 
be  distributed  over  the  others.  The  people  in  the  churcli  thus  freed 
from  debt  it  should  be  recollected,  too,  do  not  cease  to  contribute 
to  the  funds  of  the  association.  Their  honor  is  pledged  that  they 
should  continue  to  contribute  until  the  debts  of  all  the  churches  be 
paid. 

And  now,  if  every  Catholic  had  adopted  this  plan  and  carried  it 
out,  how  much  do  you  think  it  would  cost  to  pay  off  the  debts  of 
the  churches?  Why,  only  $300!  I  s.ay  when  the  question  comes 
to  me  only  $300.  Is  there  any  individual  who,  by  the  blessing  of 
God,  is  in  circumstances  enabling  him  to  do  so,  would  be  so  indif¬ 
ferent  in  tl;_<  matter,  as  to  refuse  to  give  $300  for  this  purpose  ? 
Well,  then,  it  is  only  for  One  man  to  give  $300,  or  $100,  or  $50,  or 
$10,  or  a  shilling  a  month !  That  is  all  the  burden  on  the  individual. 
And  is  it.  to  be  supposed  that  we  shall  labor  with  such  an  incubus 
as  at  present  presses  us  down,  when  the  means  of  obtaining  its  re¬ 
moval  are  so  easy  of  attainment  ? 

J3ymy  plan  will  be  presented  the  means  of  obtaining  the  offerings 
of  one  class  of  Catholics,  who  hitherto  have  not  had  the  opportunity 
so  readily  afforded  of  contributing.  I  mean  the  pious  and  virtuous 
young  women  who  are  living  at  service.  [Cheers.]  The  same  with 
the  working  men.  Who  of  those  could  not  contribue  a  shilling  a 
month  ?  Who  of  them  will  not  do  so,  when  he  recollects  that  often 
before  he  turns  the  corner  he  spends  twice  as  much  [Laughter],  but 
who  would  readily  contribute  to  this  good  cause  if  the  oijportunity 
wmre  presented  ?• 

I  am  persuaded  that  difficult  as  it  may  appear,  xf  yo'?.  adopt  this 
plan — persevere  in  this  plan — each  in  his  own  sphere  of  exertion, 
that  in  a  very  short  time  the  heap  that  is  now  a  mountain  threaten¬ 
ing  to  crush  us  down,  will  be  seen  sinking  and  disappearing  like  a 
snow-rift  in  the  warm  sun  of  May-day.  [Loud  cheers.] 

Without  saying  a  word  more  1  submit  the  plan  for  your  adoption, 
looking  on  you,  after  the  notice  given  in  all  the  churches,  as  repre¬ 
senting  all  the  C''-tholio  churches  of  the  city  of  New  York.  Without 
your  adoptior-  of  it  I  would  conceive  that  1  had  done  my  duty,  and 
might  retire  in  the  consciousness  of  having  done  so.  But  now  that 
the  clergymen  have  done  their  duty,  1  am  confident  that  the  people 
will  not  be  found  wanting.  [Deafening  applause.] 

The  Chairman  then  rose  and  said  that  the  objects  and  principles 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


oi’  the  proposed  association  having  been  so  fully  and  ably  explained 
l:y  the  Rt.  Rev.  Prelate,  he  would  merely  put  the  question  of  the 
adoption  by  the  meeting  of  the  preamble  and  rules,  which  had  been 
just  read.  The  motion  was  then  put,  and  they  were  adopted  by 
acclamation. 

The  Bishop  then  said : 

There  is  but  one  observation  more  which  I  shall  make,  and  that 
has  reference  to  a  circumstance  that  occurred  since  our  last  meeting. 
A  poor  man  called  at  our  house  the  other  day  and  sent  for  me,  and 
with  a  very  great  deal  of  feeling  said,  “  I  have  read,  sir,  in  the  news¬ 
papers  that  our  churches  are  liable  to  be  sold  for  debt,  and  it  has 
afflicted  me  very  much  that  any  person  should  take  interest  from  the 
house  of  God.”  I  replied,  that  men  who  loaned  money  fairly  could 
not  be  expected  to  do  without  receiving  interest  for  it.  “Well,” 
he  said,  “  I  am  a  servant  in  a  family,  a  waiter,  and  I  am  going  out 
of  town  to  see  my  family,  who  live  in  Boston,  but  here  is  my  mite ;  ” 
and  on  so  saying  he  laid  down  a  two  and  a  half  dollar  gold  piece. 
[Great  cheering.]  I  regret  that  I  do  not  now  recollect  this  man’s 
name,  but  it  has  been  placed  on  record  by  Rev.  Mr.  Starr.  And 
now,  as  I  cannot  be  first,  and  not  wishing  to  be  the  last,  in  this  good 
work — for  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  necessity  of  concealing  what 
we  do, — I  would  autliorize  the  secretary  to  record  my  name  for 
$100  for  my  yearly  subscription.  [Deafening  applause.] 

[The  amount  collected  at  this  meeting  was  $2,432.50.] 

Meeting  of  the  New  York  Catholic  Church  Debt  Asso¬ 
ciation.— May  10,  1841. 

A  meeting  of  the  New  York  Church  Debt  Association  was  held 
in  Carroll  Hall.  The  attendance  was  numerous  and  respectable. 
John  Quinn,  Esq.,  was  unanimously  called  to  the  chair. 

Bishop  Hughes  spoke  as  h'Uows : — It  might  probably  be  antici¬ 
pated  by  the  meeting  that  I  have  something  special  to  submit  this 
evening  to  its  consideration.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case.  I  had 
hoped  when  it  was  moved  last  evening  that  there  should  be  an  ad¬ 
journed  ineeting  this  night,  to  be  able  to  have  some  further  details 
of  the  means  by  which  our  plan  is  to  be  carried  into  execution — 
that  is  to  say,  that  books  prepared  expressly  for  the  purpose,  mak¬ 
ing  it  as  easy  as  possible  to  record  the  names  and  the  residences  and 
the  amounts  of  subscriptions,  might  be  prepared,  so  that  when  the 
time,  now  approaching,  shall  have  arrived  to  place  these  books  at 
the  disposition  of  the  different  superintendents  of  districts  to  be  by 
them  given  to  the  collectors  of  sections,  it  should  be  found  that  they 
should  all  correspond,  and  obviate  as  much  as  possible  the  necessity 
of  arranging  them,  each  collector  for  himself.  1  have  not,  however, 
owing  to  other  occupations,  been  able  to  have  these  books  as  yet 
prepared,  i  gave  them  in  charge  to  a  gentleman,  who  would,  1 
have  no  doubt,  bestow  as  much  time  as  possible  in  preparing  them, 
and  1  trust  that  by  the  end  of  the  week  it  will  be  in  our  power  to  fur¬ 
nish  the  clergy  with  them  to  be  by  them  handed  to  the  collectors. 


CHURCH  DEBT  ASS0C7AT10N. 


39^ 


There  is  anotlier  step ;  for  I  think  that  in  this  matter  the  great 
security  of  success  depends  upon  the.' understanding  of  the  subject 
by  all  the  parties  concerned ;  and  whilst  there  may  be  general  rules 
for  all  the  colle<’-tors  in  the  various  districts  to  conform  to,  I  thiuj^' 
that  it  will  be  oi  great  advantage  to  prepare  something  like  a  cop;y 
of  rules,  to  be  furni'’’  '.d  to  every  family,  so  that  they  should  have 
it  by  them,  and  the;y,  ^<itto..i'ag  into  the  undertaking  in  the  same 
spirit  that  actuated  us.  should  be  prepared  to  delay  the  collectors  as 
brief  a  period  as  possibk.  Indeed  I  would  expect  from  the  zeal  of 
the  Catholic  community,  that  when  they  will  have  understood  this, 
knowing  that  the  collectors  will  call  once  a  month,  the  head  of  the 
family — and  if  you  trust  it  to  the  pious  mother  you  will  seldom  be 
disappointed — should  have  the  contribution  of  the  month,  and  of  all 
the  members  of  the  family  who  may  be  contributors  already  prepared 
so  as  to  hand  over  at  once  to  the  collector  the  offering  of  the  house¬ 
hold  of  charity.  [Cheers.]  Then,  indeed,  the  business  of  a  collector 
would  be  a  light  and  not  an  unpleasant  one,  because  his  visit  would 
be  anticipated — he  would  be  received  cordially,  and  instead  of  hav¬ 
ing  to  beg  and  plead  as  in  some  cases,  he  would  find  that  that  offer¬ 
ing  had  been  set  ajjart  after  the  manner  of  the  first  Christians,  and 
was  already  waiting  for  him,  and  he  would  pass  on  m  mission 
of  zeal  and  charity  to  the  next  contributor. 

Now,  I  t'  ink,  it  will  be  at  once  seen  that  these  rules  wdl  greatiy 
facilitate  th<  work  of  the  collectors,  and  it  will  be  an  easy  matter 
for  each  family  to  have  a  copy  of  the  rules  in  a  conspicuous  place, 
and  knowing  that  monthly  they  will  have  an  opportunity  of  becom¬ 
ing  acquainted  with  the  manner  in  which  the  money  is  appropriated, 
they  will  labor  in  the  full  consciousness  that  they  are  laboring  for 
God, — that  is  to  say,  as  much  as  man  can,  by  promoting  his  glory 
on  earth,  and  making  his  name  adored,  and  his  knowledge  more 
widely  diffused  amongst  his  people — and  that  the  little  offering 
which  his  means  have  enabled  him  to  make  has  been  rendered  sa¬ 
cred  to  that  oliject.  Thus  you  will  find  that  perfect  harmony 
amongst  all  }  arj^s  of  the  scheme  will  be  effected.  It  is  true,  as  the 
gentleman  sait.  just  now,  that  our  churches  are  in  a  lamentable  con¬ 
dition,  for  so  Iona’  as  that  Avhich  is  consecrated  to  the  Almighty  is 
in  danger  of  being  revoked  and  transferred  to  any  other  use  that 
the  spirit  of  speculation  may  suggest  to  those  having  claims  against 
it,  so  long  is  the  Church  in  a  state  of  bondage.  And  yet  there  is 
one  remark  that  I  cannot  omit  making,  which  is,  that  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  comparative  poverty  of  the  Catholic  community — notwith¬ 
standing  the  embarrassed  state  of  the  Catholic  churches — notwith¬ 
standing  the  hesitation  which  is  felt  at  the  idea  of  loaning  money  to 
churches  of  other  denominations  similarly  circumstanced,  there  is  one 
thing  exceedingly  glorious  for  our  reputation,  that,  so  far  as  I  know, 
no  man  that  ever  had  a  just  claim  against  a  Catholic  church  ever 
lost  one  farthing  by  it.  [Loud  cheers.]  This  has  been  our  char¬ 
acter  hitherto,  and  if  we  succeed  in  our  present  undertaking,  it  will 
be  the  crowning  of  our  history.  [Cheers.] 


.39b 


AKCHBISIIOP  HUGHES. 


As  I  obsein  ed  before,  I  have  nothing  special  to  offer  for  your  con¬ 
sideration  ;  at  the  same  time  I  cannot  conclude  without  expressing 
the  gratdication  1  felt  at  the  spirit  mamftsted  at  our  last  meeting. 
I  said  then  that  if  you  were  not  willing  to  embark  in  this  undertak¬ 
ing,  it  would  not  only  be  odious  but  useless  in  me  to  press  it  on 
your  attention.  But  you  yourselves  anticipated  all  that  I  could  say 
on  that  subject,  and  instead  of  its  being  necessary  for  me  to  urge 
you  on,  I  found  that  unless  I  took  care  I  should  myself  be  left  be¬ 
hind  !  [Laughter  and  loud  cheers,]  I  have  had,  from  the  necessity 
of  circumstances,  oftentimes  to  interest  myself  for  the  accomplish¬ 
ment  of  public  undertakings  connected  witla  our  religion,  and  I  can 
say  with  safety,  that  I  have  never  seen  any,  connected  with  which 
there  was  so  little  that  was  unpleasant  as  the  one  proposed  on  the 
occasion  of  our  last  meeting  here.  Because  in  other  cases  the  eflort 
was — that  of  a  part  out  of  the  v,'hole — those  immediately  interestea 
thinking  that  their  neighbors  should  be  so  too,  and  when  they  were 
not  found  so,  yielding  to  the  discouraging  influence,  and  sometimes 
perhaps  feeling  a  rising  reproach  against  them,  for  not  having  char¬ 
ity  enough,  or  feeling  suflicient  interest  in  that  in  which  they  them¬ 
selves  were  concerned.  But  when  it,  was  proposed  that  we  should 
all  be  one  congregation  and  contribute  according  to  our  means, — in 
a  word,  when  the  undertaking  was  placed  on  the  broad  Catholic 
principle,  all  the  difficulty  vanished,  and  there  did  not  appear  to  be, 
,L  will  not  say  a  dissenting  voice,  but,  a  dissenting  feeling  in  the 
large  audience  assembled  here. 

iNow,  then,  there  is  one  other  remark  to  which  I  will  refer,  and  I 
do  so  because  it  has  its  eflect  not  only  in  attaining  our  object,  but 
in  a  moral  point  of  view.  You  are  aware  from  experience,  and  that 
experience  multiplying  lately,  that  there  are  in  this  community  those 
who  secretly  cherished  the  pretension  of  taking  your  children  to 
educate  them  according  to  their  own  notions  and  intentions.  That 
is  no  longer  a  secret ;  and  in  proportion  as  that  secret — if  secret  it 
may  be  called — became  known  to  you,  in  that  projDortion  you  be¬ 
came  aroused  to  a  conviction  of  your  duty  to  apply  every  means  to 
bring  your  children  up  to  mature  years  under  the  influence  of  that 
religion  to  which  you  trust  your  own  eternal  welfare.  Well,  what 
has  that  to  do  with  the  present  subject?  I  shall  just  now  let  you 
see  that  it  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it.  If  a  man,  for  instance, 
who  was  able  to  contribute  live  dollars  for  himself,  and  unable  to 
contribute  any  more  for  his  family,  were  to  divide  that  sum,  giving 
so  much  for  himself,  and  putting  the  remainder  into  the  hands  of 
his  children — tliose  old  enough  to  feel  the  honor  and  ])leasure  of 
contributing — that  single  circumstance,  occurring  in  the  childhood 
of  life,  would  make  an  impression  on  the  mind  of  that  child  that 
would  always  remain,  and  sink  deeper,  perhaps,  than  the  learned 
lesson  of  pastor  or  parent  in  their  most  ardent  zeal.  That  child  as 
lie  grows  up  Vvdil  feel  that  these  are  no  strange  edifices  for  which 
from  liis  clnldhood  he  had  had  the  honor  and  satisfaction  of  con- 
nibuting,  and  he  will  thus  become  still  more  firmly  attached  to  thal 


CHURCH  HER’i  i.SSOCIATION. 


39& 


religion  for  the  redemption  of  whose  temples  this  asscciatior.  has 
been  formed.  Now  I  would  suggest  that  and  much  more  in  tlie 
formula!  y,  or  rather  prospectus  of  the  whole  plan,  which  I  would 
wish  to  see  distributed  in  families,  and  the  plan  being  thus  com¬ 
pletely  organized,  and  the  people  willing  to  contribute,  and  all  in 
their  several  situations  discharging  their  duties,  three  years  will  not 
have  passed  away  until  your  church,  and  your  churches  and  all  cor.-' 
■nected  with  them  shall  be  as  you  are  yourselves,  free  and  indb 
PENDENT.  [Loud  applause.] 

[The  whole  amount  subscribed  at  this  meeting  was  $969.02.] 

Meeting  of  the  New  York  Catholic  Church  Debt  Asso¬ 
ciation.— May  26,  1 841 . 

A  meeting  of  the  New  York  Church  Debt  Association  was  held 
on  the  above  date  in  Carroll  Hall.  The  large  building  was  filled 
with  a  highly  respectable  auditory.  On  the  platform  were  the 
Right,  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes,  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Power,  Rev.  Dr.  Pise 
Rev.  Mr.  Starrs,  Rev.  IMr.  Quarter,  the  Rev.  Mr-  N.  O’Donnell  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Walsh,  of  Brooklyn.  Robert  Hogan,  Esq.,  was  unanimouslj 
called  to  preside,  and  took  the  Chair  amid  tlie  loud  applause  of  the 
meeting. 

The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  then  rose  and  was  received  with 
enthusiastic  applause.  He  addressed  the  meeting  as  follows  : — You 
must  not  be  discouraged,  gentlemen,  at  seeing  us  meet  so  frequently 
without  having  yet  put  into  execution  almost  any  part  of  the  plan 
that  has  been  adopted  for  the  end  which  we  now  propose  to  ourselves. 
There  is  a  great  deal  of  delay  in  getting  things  ready.  Certainly  I 
have  urged  expedition,  as  much  as  in  my  power,  on  those  to  whom 
1  have  entrusted  some  part  of  the  preparations — for  instance,  the 
books  that  are  to  be  all  uniform,  and  prepared  so  as  to  be  most 
easily  kept  by  the  Collectors.  And  whilst  many  are  impatient  in 
their  zeal  to  see  the  work  going  on,  we  have  deemed  it  better  rather 
to  wait  until  we  should  understand  perfectly  the  whole  of  the  plan, 
and  have  all  eng,‘'  '^,ed  in  it  to  conform  to  it.  It  is  on  this  account 
that  these  meetings,  though  they  should  have  no  other  effect,  are 
advantageous — they  give  a  similarity  of  idea.  The  persons  who 
meet  here  go  abroad  all  understanding  the  thing  in  the  same  manner. 
And  we  have  delayed  the  execution  of  the  plan  precisely  in  order 
that  this  effect  may  be  obtained.  The  last  time  we  met  I  spoke  of 
the  importance  of  its  being  well  understood  in  families,  V)ecause  the 
antt<^pation  now  is  that  every  one  tvho  calls  himself  a  Catholic  will 
ao  his  duty — that  the  Superintendents  f  Districts,  and  the  Reverenci 
Clergy,  will  themselves  take  charge  o.  the  collectors  of  sections  in 
their  districts,  that  they  will  see  them — encourage  them — direct 
them — and  that  these  then  in  their  several  sections  will  call  upon 
the  people,  and  that  the  people  themselves  will  be  prepared,  and 
understanding  the  thing  perfectly  will  diminish  as  much  as  possible 
the  trouble  and  the  labor  which  these  Collectors  are  kind  enough 
k)  undertake. 


400 


AKCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


In  a  mass  of  people  such  as  ours,  scattered  and  lost  as  it  were  ip 
ihe  great  multitude  of  this  city,  ifc  is  not  in  one  day  that  you  can 
have  a  thing  generally  known.  It  requires  a  little  time.  It  will 
penetrate  but  gradually,  and  you  may  be  sure  that  the  success  of 
this  undertaking  MuIl  be  great  just  in  proportion  as  it  is  uniformly 
well  understood,  and  cordially  approved  of  in  the  hearts  of  the 
people. 

In  several  of  the  churches  they  have  called  meetings  and  received 
subscriptions,  and  there  the  most  encouraging  will  and  disposition 
were  manifested.  This  would  be  all  well  if  for  a  brief  effort  and  a 
single  object.  But  it  is  not  so.  It  is  to  set  a  system  into  motion 
and  activity —to  attend  to  it  patiently  and  perseveringly  for  one 
year — and  if  that  be  not  long  enough  for  a  second  year — and  even 
for  a  third  if  necessary,  and  I  have  dreaded  that  the  effect  of  these 
meetings  if  continued,  although  they  seem  to  contribute  to  the 
^«,mount  and  to  the  good  Avill  displayed — would  be  twm-fold — first, 
that  they  could  not  continue  with  the  same  animation  ;  those  who 
were  disposed  to  give,  would  give  at  the  first  meetings,  and  then 
they  would  become  so  sparse  that  they  could  not  avail.  Then,  agaim 
the  Collectors  would  meet  with  the  same  people,  and  in  answer  to 
the  request  for  contributions  they  would  reply  that  they  had  already 
subscribed  elsewhere.  True  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  but  it 
would  be  so  much  of  a  discouragement  to  the  Collectors.  Because 
it  will  be  an  encouragement  to  the  Collectors,  if  all  the  members  in 
their  sections  shall  understand  that  they  are  contributors,  and  that 
they  shall  receive  something  as  they  pass  from  house  to  house.  I 
have  therefore  thought  it  best  to  organize  the  system  and  let  it  de¬ 
scend  step  by  step  till  it  reach  every  member  of  the  families.  And 
I  have  thought  it  well  to  procure  something  like  a  circular,  or  an  ad¬ 
dress  or  explanation,  which  the  Collectors  in  their  several  sections 
shall  leave  in  every  family  on  their  first  visit.  Then  it  is  to  be  trus¬ 
ted  that  the  zeal  of  our  people,  and  that  explanation  of  the  plan  to  be 
pres^erved  in  the  family,  reminding  them  of  their  duty,  will  accom¬ 
plish  our  undertaking.  I  shall  read  a  copy  of  the  circular.  It  is 
brief,  it  is  easily  preserved,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  in  every  fami 
ly  it  will  be  carefuly  kept  as  a  memento  of  the  great  work  that  is 
n<  "V  going  on  : — 

'iHE  Family  Circular  of  the  “  Catholic  Church  Debt  Asso¬ 
ciation”  OF  New  York. 

The  object  of  the  above  Association  is  to  pay  the  debts  which  are 
now  oppressing  the  churches,  and  by  annual  interests  draining  the 
resources  of  the  Catholics  of  New  York. 

The  Bishop,  the  Clergy,  and  the  Laity  have  all  concurred  in  the 
aosolute  necessity  of  the  measure,  and  in  the  united  determination  to 
carry  it  into  effect. 

For  this  purpose  the  City  has  been  divided  into  districts;  the 
districts  intc  sections ;  the  sections  into  families  ;  the  families  may 
'’nrther  be  dWided  into  the  members  of  which  it  is  composed. 


CnUECH  DEBT  ASSOCIATION. 


401 


Now,  the  object  of  this  division  is,  that  every  member  of  our  com  • 
munion,  male  and  female,  young  and  old,  married  and  single,  who  is 
willing  and  worthy  to  be  known  as  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
shall  become  a  Member  of  this  Association  by  paying  one  shilling  a 
month,  or  upwards,  towards  freeing  our  churches  from  debt — unless 
he  or  she  be  excused  by  poverty. 

What  a  glorious  spectacle  of  union,  charity,  and  zeal  will  be  ex¬ 
hibited,  when  each  Member  of  the  Church  will  thus  set  apart, 
voluntarily,  his  monthly  otfering  for  the  ransom  of  the  temples  of 
his  God  ! 

But  one  shilling  a  month  is  the  sum  for  those  who  are  least  able  to 
contribute.  Others,  to  whom  God  has  given  more  of  this  world’s 
goods,  will  be  givers  in  proportion  to  their  means.  Many  have  already 
given  their  names  ;  half  a  dollar,  a  dollar,  three,  five,  and  even  eight 
dollars  a  month  ; — who  can  doubt  but  this  will  be  generally  imitated, 
according  to  the  means  of  each  ? 


The  Bishop,  Pastors  of  the  churches.  Trustees,  Collectors  and 
others,  besides  Contributors  themselves,  will  discharge  the  duties 
and  perform  the  labors  which  are  assigned  them.  These  are  all 
regulated  and  pointed  out. 

It  remains  to  j)oint  out  the  duties  of  families  and  the  members 
composing  them.  It  is  taken  for  granted  that  all  will  subscribe,  and 
pay  monthly,  or  even  for  the  whole  year.  But  we  have  now  to  speak 
of  the  mode  of  contributing,  and  the  help  which  may  be  given  by  a 
little  attention  in  this  respect. 

The  duties  of  the  Collectors  of  Sections  will  become  tiresome  and 
unsupportable,  unless  they  are  cheered  in  their  labor  by  the  good¬ 
will  and  co-operation  of  the  families  and'  individuals  in  their  sec¬ 
tions.  A"ou  must  be  as  ready  to  receive  them  as  they  are  to  call,  as 
j)rompt  to  give  your  monthly  contributions  as  they  are  to  ask  it. 
Then  you  will  spare  their  time,  and  make  their  work  lightsome  and 
even  pleasant. 

In  order  to  do  this,  the  mother — for  who  has  more  zeal  for  the 
glory  of  God,  or  works  of  Charity,  than  the  pious  mother  of  a 
(latholic  family  ? — the  mother,  or  the  female  head  of  each,  might 
have  the  names  and  contributions  of  the  several  members  of  the 
household,  all  ready,  from  the  first  week  of  the  month,  waiting 
for  the  Collector’s  call. 

Now  we  recommend  and  request  most  earnestly,  that  this  may 
be  done,  in  all  families  where  it  is  practicable.  A  little  book  also 
might  be  kept  in  each  family,  with  the  names  of  the  children,  who 
should  by  all  means  be  enabled  to  contribute  something,  as  of  their 
oion,  and  their  oivn  free  offering.  When  they  grow  older,  they  will 
remember  this,  and  the  little  family  book  will  remind  them  that  from 
childhood  they  loved  their  faith  ;  it  will  be  an  heir-loom, 

W  e  wish  the  collectors  to  leave  in  every  family  a  copy  of  this 
Circular.  Let  it  be  ]n-eserved,  hung  up  in  some  safe  place,  where  it 
will  remind  the  members  of  the  noble  work  which  is  going  on,  and 
of  the  means  by  which  they  can  promote  it.  It  should  also  be 


26 


402 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES, 


brought  under  the  notice  of  single  persons,  who  either  live  in  the 
employment  of  others,  or  are  boarding  in  families  not  Catholic. 
This  can  be  done  by  frequent  announcement  of  it  from  the  pulpits, 
and  a  public  notice  in  the  porch  of  the  Church,  where  opportunities 
will  be  given  to  such  persons  to  contribute  and  have  their  names  en¬ 
rolled  as  Members  of  the  Association. 

Finally,  there  will  be  a  General  Meeting  of  the  President,  Super¬ 
intendents  of  Districts,  Collectors  of  Sections,  and  the  Catholic  pub¬ 
lic  at  large,  in  the  Carroll  Hall,  on  the  4th  Monday  of  each  month, 
when  a  synopsis  of  the  labors  and  success  of  the  previous  month 
shall  be  made  known. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  for  the  work 
itself  and  those  engaged  in  it,  the  Holy  Sacrifice  of  Mass  will  be 
offered  up  in  each  of  the  Catholic  Churches  for  the  benefit  of  all  the 
contributors,  on  the  fourth  Tuesday  of  each  month,  that  is,  on  the 
day  next  following  each  of  the  general  monthly  meetings. 

>F  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bp.,  &c. 

New  York,  May  24th,  1841. 

[Loud  cheers.] 

It  seems  to  me  that  one  of  these  left  by  the  Collectors  in  every 
family  as  they  go  round  for  the  first  time,  will  do  a  great  deal  both 
to  make  known  the  nature  and  object  of  this  work,  and  to  facilitate 
their  labors  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  There  is  also  a  little 
formulary  of  rules  for  the  Collectors  themselves,  which,  however,  it 
is  not  necessary  now  to  read,  but  which  will  enable  them  to  introduce 
method  and  good  order  into  every  part  of  this  otherwise  complicated 
and  difficult  undertaking.  There  is  another  document  whicli  I  have 
been  requested  to  lay  before  you.  It  contains  the  name  of  a  gentle¬ 
man  who  could  not  attend  this  evening,  but  has  desired  to  have  his 
own  name  and  those  of  several  of  his  family  recorded  as  subscribers, 
and  that  in  a  very  generous  way.  The  following  is  his  communica¬ 
tion  :  “  At  the  meeting  this  evening  Bishop  Hughes  will  please 

have  the  names  of  my  family  entered,  for  the  following  sums : — 
Andrew  Carrigan  $100;  James  Carrigan  |10;  Andrew  Carrigan 
|10  ;  Catharine  Carrigan  |10  ;  Francis  Carrigan  |10;  Mary  Car¬ 
rigan  $10.”  [Loud  cheers.] 

[The  meeting  was  afterwards  addressed  by  Rev.  Dr.  Powers, 
Rev.  Dr.  Pise,  Rev.  Mr.  Quarter,  and  others.  The  total  amount 
collected  was  $515.] 

Letter  to  Bishop  Hughes,  With  His  Reply. 

New  York,  June,  3,  1841. 

“Yon  are  engaged  in  many  noble  enterprises  for  promoting  the 
welffire  of  religion  in  your  diocese,  any  one  of  which  successfully 
carried  out,  I  have  no  doubt  they  all  will  be,  will  be  sufficient  to 
make  your  name  revered  and  loved  by  every  lover  of  our  holy  reli¬ 
gion.  But  as  it  is  not  the  object  of  this  communication  to  express 
mj  admiration  of  your  character  and  undertakings,  I  will  abstain 


CHURCH  DEBT  ASSOCIATION. 


403 


from  expressing  my  sentiments,  on  those  subjects,  and  proceed  at 
once  to  my  object. 

“You  are  probably  aT\mre  that  there  are  many  individuals,  who, 
feeling  an  interest  in  the  success  of  your  plans,  watch  very  closely 
tlie  manner  in  which  they  are  managed;  and  you  are  probably  noi 
aware  that  there  are  these  who  are  commencing  already  to  shrug 
their  shoulders  and  hint  that  affairs  are  not  properly  managed.  I 
have  heard  it  insinuated,  though  not  distinctly  charged,  that  part 
of  the  money  collected  for  paying  church  debts,  has  been  used  to¬ 
wards  paying  for  Carroll  Hall,  and  I  know  that  many  of  our  most  sen¬ 
sible  and  influential  Catholics  consider  that  purchase,  to  say  the  least 
of  it,  a  most  extravagant  one,  and  that  they  would  consider  them¬ 
selves  aggrieved  by  any  such  application  of  their  contributions  to 
that  fund. 

“I  am  informed  that  you  have  charge  of  the  moneys  collected  for 
that  association,  and  that  you  are  to  take  upon  yourself  the  princi¬ 
pal  management  of  its  fiscal  affairs,  and  my  object  in  addressing  you 
is  most  respectfully  to  recommend  to  you  to  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  custody  and  management  of  its  moneys  and  accounts.  Do  not 
suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  I  doubt  your  capability  of  managing 
such  business,  but  my  experience  in  the  care  of  accounts  causes  me 
to  fear^  that  you,  who  have  duties  so  heavy  and  multitudinous,  could 
not  bestow  upon  such  accounts  the  time  and  attention  they  will  re¬ 
quire — and  that  you  would  liereafter  find  cause  to  regret  having 
taken  upon  yourself  so  onerous  and  burdensome  a  task.  It  appears 
to  me  that  as  large  sums  of  money  'are  to  be  raised  and  expended, 
and  years  required  to  complete  the  undertaking,  the  accounts  will 
become  ultimately  more  or  less  complex,  and  if  they  be  not  kept 
systematically,  error  and  confusion  will  creep  in,  and  cause  trouble 
and  perhaps  chagrin.  My  fears  of  inaccurate  accounts  are  based 
upon  the  belief  that  few  men,  no  matter  what  their  intelligence  and 
and  education,  who  have  not  been  brought  up  to  business,  can  make 
accounts  intelligible  to  others ;  and  1  would  least  expect  to  find  in 
our  ministry  the  necessary  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  details 
of  business  operations.  I  am  urged  to  address  you  by  my  desire 
to  see  you  retain  the  esteem  and  affection  of  the  whole  Catholic 
population — that  unanimous  popularity  you  have  deservedly  won 
and  so  wisely  use ;  and  to  see  you  ever  remain  free  from  imputations 
or  suspicions  of  error. 

“Permit  me  to  repeat  that  I  would  most  respectfully  suggest  the 
propriety  of  having  the  treasurer’s  accounts  of  that  association  under 
the  care  of  a  practical  accountant. 

“I  am  aware  that  in  addressing  you  anonymously  I  adopt  a  very 
unpopular  and  suspicious  mode,  but  as  I  have  not  the  pleasure  of 
being  personally  known  to  you,  and  have  no  right  to  expect  that  you 
would  complacently  receive  oral  counsel  from  a  stranger — if  I  had 
arrogance  so  to  give  it, — I  choose  this  method  as  being  most  conve¬ 
nient,  and  trust  to  the  honesty  of  my  desire  to  promote  your  happiness 
to  shield  me  from  any  imputation  or  suspicion  of  unworthy  motives.” 


404 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


The  foregoing  letter  came  to  me  through  the  post-office.  My 
nsual  practice  is  to  burn  anonymous  letters  without  reading  them, 
the  moment  I  discover  what  they  are.  This  one  is  indebted  for  a 
different  destination  to  the  circumstance  that  there  was  no  fire  near 
at  hand. 

I  regard  its  contents  as  proceeding  from  a  spirit  of  friendship  to- 
v'ards  myself,  and  as  deserving  some  notice  which  I  cannot  bring 
under  the  eye  of  its  author,  except  through  the  columns  of  your 
very  respectable  journal.  Who  the  writer  is  I  do  not  know,  and 
l.ave  not  the  least  curiosity  to  learn. 

He  will  perhaps  be  surprised  when  I  tell  him  that  I  had  reflected 
on  all  that  is  said  in  his  letter,  before  I  broached  the  plan  of  the 
association  of  liquidating  the  debt  of  the  churches.  I  knew  the  dif¬ 
ficulty  of  keeping  complicated  accounts,  and  that  I  am  for  such  a 
task  one  of  the  most  unfit  persons  that  could  be  selected.  It  was 
precisely  for  this  reason  that  I  made  the  plan  so  simple.  The  col¬ 
lectors  of  sections  mark  “  paid,”  the  sums  which  they  receive.  They 
pay  over  to  the  pastor  of  the  district  the  monthly  aggregate,  and 
take  his  receipt  for  the  amount.  The  superintendent  of  districts  pays 
over  to  me  the  monthly  aggregate,  returned  to  him  by  the  collectors 
in  districts,  and  takes  my  receipt  for  the  amount.  The  amount  received 
by  me  from  the  superintendents,  and  for  which  the  receipts  given 
by  me  are  evidence,  is  to  be  distributed  every  three  months  to  the 
trustees,  and  their  receipts  taken  hy  me  for  the  same.  At  the  quar¬ 
terlymeeting  these  receipts  are  to  be  exhibited  as  vouchers,  at  every 
step  of  the  proceeding ;  so  that  the  contributor  can  track  his  money 
from  hand  to  hand,  until  he  sees  it  applied  to  the  liquidation  of  the 
debt  on  the  churches.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  my  part  in  this  is 
exceedingly  simple,  and  does  not  at  all  require  that  I  should  be  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  arts  ajid  science  of  banking  and  of  business. 

But  my  correspondent  would  say — “  but  why  not  leave  it  to  some 
one  else  ?  your  office  is  too  sacred  and  your  reputation  too  dear  to 
us,  to  be  exposed  to  our  suspicions  and  you  know  how  apt  we  are  to 
be  distrustful  and  uncharitable.” 

Yes,  I  know  all  this,  and  am  very  sorry  for  it.  And  now  I  will 
give  my  reasons  for  having  anything  to  do  with  the  receiving  and 
disbursement  of  this  fund.  1.  I  am  satisfied  in  my  own  mind  that 
the  fact  of  my  doing  so  inspires  the  people  at  large  with  a  confidence 
in  the  safety  of  the  money,  and  the  ultimate  success  of  the  plan, 
which  no  amount  of  business  knowledge  could  inspire.  2.  If  I  liad 
not  done  so,  we  should  be  already  divided  into  parties.,  about  the 
person  who  shoidd  be  Treasurer.  3.  This  division  would  mar  and 
destroy  the  success  of  the  collection.  4.  If  any  other  person  can  be 
named  in  whom  the  people  will  put  the  same  confidence,  I  will  most 
cheerfully  approve  of  the  appointment,  and  put  him  in  my  stead. 
5.  If  suspicion  must  be,  I  can  bear  it  as  well  as  any  one  else,  and 
better  than  a  great  many  others.  6.  And  the  reason  why  I  am 
willing  to  bear  it  is,  that  it  is,  if  it  exists  at  all,  confined  to  so  few, 
and  those  few  so  insignificant,  compared  with  the  thousands  and 


CHURCH  DEBT  ASSOCIATION. 


405 


thousands  of  tho3(}  who  have  unbounded  confidence  in  me,  that  their 
apprehensions  do  not  weigh  a  feather  in  the  scale  of  comparison. 
But  in  all  this  1  may  be  mistaken,  and  if  the  person  to  wdiom  my 
kind  correspondent  alludes  will  point  out  any  one  whose  appoint¬ 
ment  as  Treasurer,  in  my  place,  will  not  be  an  injury  to  the  under¬ 
taking,  I  shall  most  cheerfully  allow  him  to  assume  the  office. 

]\iy  unknown  correspondent  has  not  refiected  as  much  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  as  I  have — or  he  would  understand  that  something  more  is 
necessary  for  a  Treasurer  in  these  time  than  a  knowledge  of  keeping 
accounts  correctly.  Hundreds  of  worthy  men  could  be  found  among 
us,  but  the  difficulty  would  be  to  obtain  for  them  that  general  and 
unwavering  confidence  which  the  Catholics  place  in  their  Bishop,  and 
which  is  essential  to  the  success  of  the  “  Church  Debt  Association.” 

It  now  only  remains  for  me  to  speak  of  Carroll  Hall.  This  was  a 
purchase  which  I  never  authorized.  It  was  made  in  my  absence, 
but  without  any  authority  from  me.  To  remove  a  difficulty  connect¬ 
ed  with  the  purchase  of  it,  I  consented  to  take  the  transfer  of  it,  for 
the  “  benefit  of  the  Catholics  of  New  York.”  I  did  believe  then, 
and  I  believe  still  that  it  would  be  to  their  great  benefit  to  keep  that 
property  for  uses  to  which  it  can  be  a})plied,  for  the  unexpired  term 
of  the  lease  on  it — 19  years.  But  if  they  should  think  otherwise, 
they  are  by  no  means  obliged  to  accept  of  it.  At  a  proper  time 
they  shall  have  the  option  to  accejit,  or  not,  the  lease  of  that  property. 
In  the  meantime  it  stands  utterly  clear  of,  and  unconnected  with, 
the  “  Church  Debt  Association.”  For  the  moneys  that  were  taken 
at  the  meetings  of  that  association,  I  have  given  receipts  to  those 
who  collected  it,  and  handed  it  over  to  me.  This  is  as  much  as  self 
respect  permits  me  to  say  about  it. 

In  fine  my  correspondent  is  mistaken  in  supposing  that  I  would 
not  receive  his  suggestions  because  he  is  not  acquainted  with  me.  I 
have  nothing  in  view  but  the  general  good  of  the  Catholic  community ; 
and  if  any  one  can  point  out  an  improvement  in  the  means  for  attain¬ 
ing  that  good,  not  only  will  I  receive  and  hear  his  advice,  but  be 
thankful  to  him  for  having  offered  it.  I  am  sorry  tlien  that  my  un¬ 
known  correspondent  did  not  make  the  experiment,  and  save  me  the 
time  which  it  has  taken  to  write  these  remarks,  as  well  as  you  the 
trouble  of  publishing  them.  I  am  very  sincerely  your  obed't  serv’t, 

^  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop,  Ac. 

[The  meetings  of  the  Church  Debt  Association  were  held  every 
month  for  a  year,  and  at  nearly  all  the  meetings  Bishop  Hughes  was 
present  and  made  short  addresses,  which  were,  however,  only 
imperfectly  reported,  therefore  it  is  not  deemed  advisable  to  publish 
them  here.  The  last  meeting  was  held  on  June  18th,  1842,  when 
Bishop  Hughes  stated  that  the  business  of  that  meeting  completed 
one  year  since  the  origin  of  the  association.  Its  results  would  be 
published  in  a  general  Report,  which  would  be  an  evidence  of  what 
can  be  done  in  this  way.  The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  alluded  to  the 
many  circumstances  of  the  past  year,  disadvantageous  to  the  result 


406 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  tlie  experiment.  He  did  not  seem  disposed  to  press  the  coii 
tiiiuanee  of  the  work  in  its  present  form,  unless  it  should  be  generally 
insisted  on  by  the  people  themselves.  The  same  end  might  be 
obtained  by  each  district  appropriating  immediately  to  the  relief  of 
its  own  church  the  amount  of  its  contributions.  The  success  of  the 
present  method,  he  said,  depended  on  the  fidelity  and  perseverance 
witli  which  each  separate  portion  should  accomplish  its  part.  The 
indifference  of  one  section  Avould  chill  the  ardor  of  the  other  sections, 
and  it  was  through  reasonable  apprehensions  of  this,  that  he  did  not 
deem  it  advisable,  unless  urged  by  the  general  wish,  to  continue  the 
association  in  its  present  form  beyond  the  close  of  the  year  from  its 
origin.  He  concluded  his  remarks  by  expressing  his  thanks  to  all 
who  had  taken  a  zealous  part  in  this  work  so  essential  for  the  relief 
of  the  churches  and  the  advancement  of  religion.  The  total  amount 
received  by  the  association  was  over  $20,000.] 


INTRODUCTION  BY  THE  RIG-HT  REV.  BISHOP 
HUG-HES  TO  MR  LIVING-STON’S  BOOK  ON 
“  IMPUTATION.” 

Within  the  last  forty  years,  there  has  been,  in  the  public  mind  of 
almost  all  Protestants  nations,  a  growing  disposition  to  reconsider 
the  grounds  of  the  great  schism  of  the  Sixteenth  century,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  which  so  many  have  been  separated  from  the  unity  of  the 
Christian  Church.  During  this  period,  numerous  conversions  to  the 
Catholic  faith  have  occurred,  among  men  high  in  rank  and  station, 
and  eminent  in  the  Avalks  of  science  and  literature.  England,  the 
Low  Countries,  Switzerland,  and  the  different  States  of  Protestant, 
as  well  as  Catholic  Germany,  have  all  furnished  remarkable  instances. 
These  examples,  appeared,  at  the  time,  to  have  had  no  effect  on  the 
general  feelings  of  the  nations  in  which  they  occurred.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  almost  impossible,  in  the  good  providence  of  God,  that  they 
should  not  have  had  great  influence  in  predisposing  the  minds  of 
others  remotely,  and  perhaps  without  their  own  consciousness  of 
the  fact,  to  take  a  more  calm  and  sober  view  of  the  whole  controversy. 
The  new  religions  had  been  undergoing  the  experiment  of  practice, 
for  nearly  three  hundred  years,  side  by  side  with  the  ancient  faith. 
The  results  were  before  men’s  eyes  ;  and  it  required  only  a  dispassion¬ 
ate  and  sincere  mind  to  judge  of  them.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Catho¬ 
lics  were  seen  held  together,  under  the  most  adverse  circumstances 
of  civil  and  social  relations,  in  the  universal  communion  of  one 
church.  On  the  other  side,  Protestants  always  disagreed  among 
themselves.  Every  effort  made  towards  attaining  unity,  resulted, 
among  them  in  fresh  divisions.  The  Catholic  Church  was  seen 
moving  onivard,  amidst  the  convulsions  and  disorders  of  the  times, 
in  the  same  uudeviating  course  which  had  been  traced  out  for  her 
from  the  beginning  ; — the  Protestants,  on  the  other  hand,  exhibited 
the  new  system  of  religion  as  resting  on  no  permanent  or  immutable 


407 


INTRODUCTION  TO  “IMPUTATION.” 

basis  ;  but  dependent  on  temporal  circumstances,  and  the  vicissitudes 
and  uncertainty  of  human  opinion.  Under  the  former,  reason 
reco_<2:nized  the  dominion  of  faith  in  all  matters  of  revelation  ;  under 
the  latter,  reason  was  made  the  judge  of  faith  itself;  and  the 
practical  consequences  could  be  traced,  from  the  wild  and  fitful  out¬ 
bursts  of  religious  feelings,  which  marked  the  first  days  of  the  great 
schism,  es})ecially  in  Germany,  down  to  the  cold  and  Christ-denying 
speculations  of  its  rationalism  in  our  own  times. 

The  individual  instances,  to  which  we  have  alluded,  of  a  return  to 
the  ancient  faith,  must  have  served  as  occasions  for  bringing  these 
com})arative  results  before  the  minds  of  serious  and  reflecting  men 
of  both  communions.  But  they  must  have  done  more.  The  Catho¬ 
lic  religion  had  been  represented  as  suited  only  to  ages  of  ignorance 
and  mental  darkness  ;,and  this  prejudice  must  have  been  confounded, 
as  men  of  the  purest  character,  and  most  poiverful  intellects,  were 
seen,  from  time  to  time,  passing  over  to  Catholicism,  in  the  full  light 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  Such  examples,  and  in  increasing 
numbers,  are  witnessed  from  day  to  day.  But  within  the  last  fifteen 
or  twenty  years,  the  controversy  between  the  two  communions  has 
assumed  new  features,  altogether  favorable  to  Catholicity.  Among 
the  Protestant  clergy  on  the  continent,  several  distinguished  authors 
have  come  forward  to  vindicate  certain  portions  of  ecclesiastical 
history  as  well  as  the  character  of  certain  Popes,  from  the  foul 
aspersions  and  misrepresentations  of  the  earlier  Protestant  writers. 
In  England,  on  the  other  hand,  the  venerable  dogmds  of  the  Catholic 
faith  have  been,  to  a  great  extent,  vindicated  in  the  writings  of  the 
Oxford  Tractari<ans.  In  both  cases,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the 
testimonies  in  favor  of  truth  are  those  of  adversaries  ;  but  it  is  this 
circumstance  that  gives  them  additional  weight,  on  the  general  bear¬ 
ing  and  issue  of  the  great  question.  Protestants  would  not  receive, 
generally,  the  testimony  of  Catholic  witnesses  on  these  subjects;  but 
when  some  of  the  first  men  in  their  own  ranks  bear  similar  testimony, 
the  effect  is  calculated  to  shake,  to  its  very  centre,  the  foundation  of 
their  prejudices  against  the  ancient  faith. 

Accordingly,  these  writers  are  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as 
individuals  merely,  but  as  leaders,  representatives  of  whole  classes  ; 
org.ans,  giving  utterance,  with  a  faltering  voice,  to  the  uneasiness, 
doubts,  and  struggles  that  agitate  the  breasts  of  thousands  of  their 
Protestant  countrymen.  If  there  be  one  impression  that  has  seized 
on  the  minds  of  all  sects  and  parties,  except  themselves,  with  the 
grasp  of  a  conviction^  it  is,  that  the  Oxford  movement  must  lead  its 
votaries  into  the  bosom  of  the  Ciitholic  Church.  There  is  but  one 
other  alternative  possible  ;  and  that  is,  that  they  should  abandon 
the  gi’ound  they  have  taken,  retreat  to  the  point  from  which  they 
started,  and  rest  satisfied  with  the  religion  which  the  laws  of  their . 
country  have  prescribed  for  them.  It  is,  however,  a  painful  con¬ 
test,  between  the  spirit  and  the  flesh.  May  Almighty  God  strengthen 
them  by  his  grace,  to  accomplish  the  sacrifice  which  will  best  pro¬ 
mote  his  glory,  and  secure  their  own  salvation. 


408 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


But  the  social  as  well  as  religious  condition  of  England,  at  the 
present  time,  is  enough  to  convince  wise  men  that  the  country 
requires  a  spiritual  renovation, which  the  barrenness  of  Protestantism 
is  incapable  of  producing.  The  moral  sympathies,  that  should  knit 
and  bind  together  all  classes,  liave  been  ruptured  or  dissolved.  The 
wealthy  aristocracy,  the  poor,  and  the  middle  classes,  which  should 
blend  into  each  other  at  a  thousand  points  of  social  and  religious 
contact,  are  as  distinct  and  separate,  except  in  the  material  relations 
of  self-interest,  as  the  castes  of  Hindooism.  Pauperism,  unknown 
in  that  country  during  Catholic  times,  is  now  universal  throughout 
the  land.  The  domains  of  the  monasteries,  and  of  the  Church,  were 
formerly  the  patrimony  of  the  poor,  of  which  the  monks  and  clergy 
were  as  the  administrators  for  their  benefit ;  now  these  domains 
belong  to  the  princes  of  Protestantism  ;  and  for  the  poor,  ivork-houses 
have  been  constructed  from  the  ruins  of  the  abbeys.  In  Catholic 
times,  the  clergy,  by  their  state  of  voluntary  celibacy,  left  the 
resources  of  the  jioor  almost  undiininished ;  now,  the  whole  church- 
livings  are  hardly  sufficient  for  the  extravagant  modes  of  life  and 
domestic  ambitions  of  tho  married  clergy.  The  extent  of  ignorance 
among  the  working  classes,  respecting  the  first  principles  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  would  be  incredible  were  it  not  attested  by  Reports  of 
Parliamentary  Committees.  So  that  whetlier  you  regard  the  gilded 
corruptions  of  excessive  wealth  on  the  one  side,  or  the  squalid 
depravities  of  extreme  destitution  on  the  other  ;  or  contemplate  the 
ignorance  of  religion,  the  infidelity,  and  desperate  confederations  of 
those  who  occupy  the  middle  ground  between  them,  it  will  appear 
evident,  that  the  regeneration  of  such  a  people,  even  under  the 
social  as2)ect,  requires  the  jiresence  and  the  action  of  a  religion 
whicli  can  infuse  into  its  masses  the  warmth  and  vitality  of  the 
Christian  virtues  reduced  into  daily  practice. 

In  alluding  to  these  things  as  betraying,  to  the  eyes  of  discerning 
I^rotestanls  themselves,  the  evidence  of  a  moral  and  religious  want, 
which  the  established  clmrch  is  obviously,  through  its  own  intrinsic 
deficiency,  unqualified  to  sujiply,  we  would  by  no  means  jiresent 
them  as  the  only,  or  even  a  prominent  cause,  of  the  general  move¬ 
ment  which  is  now  going  on  in  England,  in  the  direction  of  a  return 
to  the  Catholic  faith.  No;  we  would  rather  believe,  humbly,  that 
the  progress  of  this  movement  is  directed  through  the  operation  of 
that  Grace  which  is  invoked  by  the  united  prayer  of  millions,  for  the 
conversion  of  the  English  nation.  But  neither  is  it  to  be  forgotten, 
that  God,  in  his  designs  of  mercy,  may  make  use  of  outward  things 
as  well  as  interior  convictions,  to  hasten  the  period  of  their  accom¬ 
plishment.  He  must  be  but  a  superficial  reader  of  things,  who  does 
not  see,  in  the  actual  condition  of  England,  what  a  powerful  A'indica- 
tion  of  the  Catholic  faith,  has  been  wrought  out  by  the  silent  ])rogress 
of  human  events — and  wdiat  a  deep  stamj)  of  failure  has  been  fixed 
on  Protestantism,  as  a  social  and  religious  experiment,  by  the  same 
unspeaking,  but  intelligible  test.  It  can  hardly  be  sujiposed,  that 
it  w  as  the  mere  learning  or  piety  of  the  Oxford  divines,  that  has 


INTEODUCTTON  TO  “  mPTJTATTON.” 


409 


won  for  their  views  the  sympathy  and  approbation  of  high  secular 
powers  in  the  state.  Statesmen,  no  less  than  theologians,  have 
advocated,  and  continue  to  advocate  their  views  ;  and  although 
these  views  do  not  yet  avow  the  adoption  of  the  whole  Catholic 
truth,  still,  they  are  manifestly  adverse  to  the  essential  principles  of 
the  entire  Protestant  system.  Now,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  in 
every  defence  of  these  views  which  they  have  deemed  it  ex.pedient  to 
put  forth,  the  moral  and  social,  as  well  as  religious  condition  of  the 
country,  entered  into  their  grounds  of  justification.  Indeed,  so 
much  is  the  case,  that  it  is  avowed  in  the  brief  title  prefixed  to  the 
writings  by  which  they  have  become  so  celebrated,  “  Tiiacts  foe 
THE  Times.” 

It  is  remarkable,  under  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  the  Oxford 
divines  should  have  overlooked  the  matter  which  is  treated  of  in 
the  following  pages.  Among  all  the  errors  owing  their  birth  to  the 
innovations  of  the  sixteenth  century,  there  is  not  one  so  subtle  as  that 
which  the  Reformers  adopted  on  the  subject  of  justification  by  faith 
alone.  It  lies  at  the  root  of  the  whole  system  of  Protestantism.  It 
pervades,  with  but  little  modification,  the  doctrines  of  all  the  various 
sects,  comprised  under  that  comprehensive  term.  To  it  may  be 
traced  the  peculiar  and  distinctive  moral,  as  well  as  social  features, 
that  characterize  every  community  or  nation  in  which  it  has  pre¬ 
vailed.  It  has  chilled  every  generous  emotion  of  self-sacrifice,  and 
Christian  heroism,  which  the  charities  of  the  Christian  religion  are 
wont  to  excite  in  the  human  breast,  and  which  the  ancient  faith 
knows  so  well  how  to  cherish,  and  ripen  into  the  means  of  temporal 
and  eternal  benedictions  to  the  whole  human  race.  Why  is  it  that 
Protestantism  has  produced  no  institutions  for  the  welfare  of  man¬ 
kind,  which  can  be  traced  to  the  inward  efficacy  of  any  of  its 
principles,  acting  on  the  human  heart  and  soul?  no  universities,  no 
hospitals,  no  churches,  no  asylums  for  the  poor  ?  Some  of  all  these, 
it  has  unquestionably  produced ;  but  there  is  not  so  much  as  one, 
that  can  be  traced  to  the  inw.ard  power  of  any  principles  of  Protestant¬ 
ism  operating  silently  and  secretly  in  the  souls  of  men.  Human 
legislation  will  be  found  to  have  intervened  in  all  the  Protestant 
couutiies  of  Europe  ;  whereas  those  same  countries  had  been  almost 
paved  with  such  institutions  resulting  from  the  inward  operation, 
without  the  aid  of  human  laws,  of  the  Catholic  faith,  in  the  hearts 
of  men,  before  Protestantism  began.  Why  has  the  latter  system 
never  produced  a  Xavier,  an  order  for  the  redemption  of  captives,  a 
Vincent  of  Paul,  or  even  a  Sister  of  Charity?  No  one  could  HU 
the  place  of  either  of  these,  without  being  prepared  to  ofter  himself 
a  daily  sacrilice,  or  if  need  be,  once  for  all,  for  the  good  of  his 
neighbor,  which  is  only  the  second  part  of  the  Lord’s  command¬ 
ment,  carried  to  its  point  of  heroism ;  and  why  is  it  that  Protestant¬ 
ism  has  never  been  able  to  inspire  this  heroism  into  a  single 
member  of  its  communion  ?  Who  has  ever  heard  even  of  a  Protest¬ 
ant  Sister  of  Chailty  ? 

We  know,  indeed,  that  such  woi’ks  have  a  place  in  the  theory  of 


410 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


the  Protestant  system;  but  in  that  theory  itself,  their  sphere  is 
restricted  ;  within  it,  too,  they  are  controlled  by  an  arbitrary  rule 
of  divine  economy ;  and  even  then,  they  are  pronounced  utterly 
unprofitable  to  the  soul  of  him  who  performs  them !  How,  then,  can 
the  Tractarians  realize,  in  the  Anglican  communion,  so  long  as  this 
doctrine  is  not  repudiated,  those  practical  results  which  religion, 
operating  internally  on  the  hearts  of  men,  is  constantly  producing  in 
Catholic  lands  ?  Do  men  gather  figs  of  thorns,  or  grapes  of  thistles  ? 

Still,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  the  idea  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  as  it  presents  itself  to  minds  trained  up  in  the  Protestant 
gystern  is  plausible  and  seductive.  As  this  subject,  however,  is 
seldom  treated  of  in  a  popular  way,  it  may  be  well  to  give  a  brief 
statement  of  the  question  and  a  definition  of  the  terms  involved  in  it. 

“Justification”  is  that  action  or  operation  of  divine  grace  on  the 
soul,  by  which  a  man  passes  from  the  state  of  sin  ;  from  an  enemy, 
becomes  the  friend  of  God,  agreeable  in  the  divine  sight,  and  an 
heir  to  eternal  life.  This  act  of  transition  from  the  one  state  to  the 
other,  with  its  operating  causes,  is  called  “justification.”  From  the 
circumstance  of  its  being  a  spiritual  and  interior  operation,  it  is 
evident  that  it  affords  an'  opportunity  for  theological  subtleties,  to 
those  who  would  make  use  of  it ;  and  at  the  same  time,  renders  it 
difficult  to  expose  the  error  which  those  subtleties  may  be  employed 
to  foster.  The  Church,  therefore,  has  always  preserved  her  ancient 
and  orthodox  teachinsr  under  the  form  of  sound  words — which 
heresy  has  ever  betrayed  itself  by  refusing  to  adopt. 

d'hus,  in  both  communions,  justification  is  acknowledged  to  be,  as 
to  its  efficient  source,  from  and  through  and  by  Jesus  Christ,  alone. 
But  in  the  Catholic  system,  this  justification,  occurring  in  the  modes 
of  the  Saviour’s  appointment,  is  not  only  the  imputation,  but  also 
in  the  interior  application  of  the  justice  of  Christ,  by  which  guilt  is 
destroyed,  pardon  bestowed,  and  the  soul  replenished  by  the  inherent 
grace  and  charity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

According  to  the  Protestant  principle,  justification  is  when  a  man 
believes  with  a  firm  and  certain  faith  or  conviction,  in  his  own  mind, 
that  the  justice  of  Christ  is  “imputed”  to  him.  This  is  that  “faith 
alone,”  by  which  they  profess  to  be  saved.  The  sacraments,  for  them, 
have  no  other  end  or  efficacy,  except  as  signs  to  awaken  this 
individual  and  personal  faith,  so  called,  and  as  tokens  of  communion. 
Neither  is  it,  that  any  intrinsic  or  interior  operation  takes  place  in 
the  soul,  by  this,  in  which  she  is  changed  by  a  transition  from  the 
state  of  sin,  now  remitted  and  destroyed,  to  a  state  of  justice 
wrought  for  her  and  in  her,  by  the  application  of  the  merits  and 
infusion  of  the  grace  of  Christ.  No;  this  is  the  Catholic  doctrine. 
But,  according  to  the  Protestant  principle,  no  such  change  takes 
place.  According  to  that  principle,  the  impious  man  is  not  made 
just,  even  by  the  adoption  of  God,  or  the  merits  of  Christ.  But 
leaving  him  in  his  injustice,  it  is  conceived  that  his  sins  are  no  longer 
imputed  to  him,  but  that  the  justice  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  him. 
Thus  a  criminal  is  under  guilt  and  condemnation ;  but  in  considera- 


411 


INTRODUCTION  TO  “IMPUTATION.” 

tion  of  a  powerful  and  innocent  intercessor,  the  chief  magistrate 
pardons  him.  It  is  only  by  a  certain  fiction  of  thought  and  language 
that  such  a  2:)erson  can  be  considered  innocent ;  or  that  his  intrinsic 
guilt  can  be  conceived  of  as  still  existing,  but  as  imj)uted  to  the  one 
who  interceded  for  him,  and  the  justice  of  that  intercessor  imjmted 
to  him.  Such  is  the  exact  likeness  of  justitication  as  taught  in  the 
theology  of  Protestantism.  But  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  sphere 
which  is  assigned  as  the  seat  of  this  sjiecies  of  fiction,  is  the  mind 
of  God  himself!  The  sinner  is  not  intrinsically,  or  really  justified, 
in  this  system,  but  we  are  told  that  God,  on  account  of  the  merits 
of  Christ,  is  pleased  to  regard  and  “  repute”  him  as  such  ;  that  is, 
God  “  reputes”  him  to  be,  what,  in  reality,  He  knows  him  not  to  be  1 

St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  sjieaks  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham  as  having  been  reputed  to  him  unto  justice.  And  Luther, 
to  meet  the  exigencies  of  his  case,  seized  on  the  letter  of  this  passage, 
and  distorted  its  sjiirit  and  meaning.  God  had  made  rich  promises 
to  Abraham  and  his  posterity.  The  hope  of  this  promise  was  in  his 
son  Isaac.  And  God,  to  try  the  faith  of  his  servant,  directed 
Abraham  to  immolate  this,  his  only  son,  as  a  sacrifice  to  his  name. 

Such  an  order,  under  such  circumstances,  was  calculated  to  throw 
deep  and  impenetrable  mystery  over  the  jirevious  jiromises,  treasured 
up  in  the  mind  of  the  patriarch.  Nevertheless,  he  falters  not  in 
his  confidence,  but  obeys  without  a  moment’s  hesitation.  He  sinks 
all  the  apprehensions  arising  from  the  suggestions  of  fiesh  and  blood, 
and  in  the  simplicity  of  his  confidence,  i^repares  to  execute  what  had 
been  commanded.  And  it  is  only  when  his  hand  is  ujilifted  to  strike, 
that  God  manifests  his  acceptance  of  the  will,  which,  however,  em¬ 
braced  the  work  itself,  that  he  is  no  longer  permitted  to  execute. 

Such  was  the  faith  of  Abraham.  But  it  is  evident  that  it  embraced 
the  works,  and  that  so  far  as  obedience,  will,  intention,  purpose,  and 
even  feelings,  were  concerned,  Abraham  had  already  completed  the 
sacrifice.  This,  the  same  Apostle  writes  in  the  Ejiistle  to  the  He¬ 
brews,  ii.  17.  “  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  tried,  offered  Isaac  ; 

and  he  that  had  received  the  jironiises  offered  w/>his  only  begotten  son.” 

As,  however,  the  outward  immolation  was  not  actually  or 
physically  consummated,  Luther  was  pleased  to  exclude  it  altogether 
from  the  faith  of  Abraham,  contrary  to  the  express  words  of  St. 
Paul  himself.  The  error  of  Luther  has  been  incorporated,  with  but 
slight  modifications,  into  the  theology  of  all  the  other  Protestant 
denominations.  Hence  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  “faith  alone.” 
By  faith,  to  use  their  own  phraseology,  the  sinner  “  seizes”  on  the 
merits  of  Christ — by  believing  firmly  that  they  are  “  imputed”  to 
him.  It  is  not  that  by  this,  he  is  made  just  or  innocent,  but  God  is 
pleased  to  declare^  to  suppose^  to  repute — let  us  say  it  with  reverence 
— to  imagine,  him  as  such.  It  is  all  God’s  work,  he  has  not  the 
smallest  share  in  it — and  then,  the  seductive  boast  of  the  system, 
that  thus,  “  all  the  glory  returns  to  God,  and  nothing  to  man.” 
Under  the  same  jfiea,  good  works  were  decried  as  hindrances,  rather 
than  helps,  in  the  matter  of  justification.  It  was  sup|)osed,  indeed^ 


412 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


that  by  a  necessary  consequence,  they  would  appear  in  the  life  of 
the  believer,  as  the  fruit  and  evidence  of  his  faith.  But,  even  then, 
they  could  be  of  no  advantage  to  the  soul.  Neither  could  sin,  except 
that  of  unbelief  alone,  defeat  its  salvation.  To  such  a  point  of 
of  insanity  did  Luther  carry  his  doctrine  on  this  subject,  that  he 
declares,  that  “  if  adultery  could  be  committed  in  faith,  it  would  not 
be  a  sin.”  “  Si  in  fide  fieri  posset  adulteinum,  peccatum  non  esset.” — 
Lulh.  Disput.  t.  1,  b.  523. 

This  doctrine  is  the  root  of  all  those  distinctive  features  of  Pro¬ 
testantism,  which  place  its  moral,  as  well  as  dogmatical  code,  so 
much  in  opposition  to  the  ancient  teaching  of  Christendom,  and  of 
the  Catholic  world.  Calvin  moulded  it  into  his  own  system  of 
Election,  Predestination,  Reprobation,  and  Inamissible  Grace.  The 
different  confessions  of  faith  have  mitigated  somewhat  the  harshness 
of  language  with  which  it  was  first  set  forth  in  the  writings  of  the 
two  great  Continental  Reformers.  But  its  substance  pervades  them 
all.  The  extent  to  which  it  has  prevailed  in  the  Anglican  Church, 
which  is  supposed  to  have  departed  least  from  the  ancient  faith,  will 
appear  in  the  little  Avork  which  is  now  presented  to  the  public.  And 
humanly  speaking,  there  is  no  hope  for  the  Protestant  world,  even 
through  the  piety  and  learning  that  are  represented  by  the  Oxford 
divines,  until  they  themselves  shall  have  burst  through  the  intricate 
and  subtle  meshes  of  this  elaborate  net  of  primitive  Protestantism. 
They  seem  to  repine  at  not  beholding  among  themselves  those  fruits 
of  religion,  which  they  witness  among  their  Catholic  neighbors.  But 
how  could  they  expect  it,  while  they  teach  that  man’s  righteousness 
is  solely  by  the  mere  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ — and 
that  this  imputation  is  by  faith  alone,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  good 
works,  either  before  or  after  justification  ?  Do  they  not  see  that 
this  system  leaves  them  no  ground  whereon  to  place  the  fulcrum,  or 
apply  the  lever  of  either  a  moral,  religious,  or  social  regeneration  ? 

VVe  would  not  be  understood  by  these  remarks,  to  assert  or 
insinuate,  that  the  moral  virtues  are  not  attended  to  in  the  practice 
of  Protestant  communities  as  well  as  elsewhere.  Far  from  it.  But 
it  is  seldom  that  the  conduct  of  men  is  in  strict  consistency  with 
their  creed,  and  in  the  present  instance  it  is  well  known,  that  Catho¬ 
lics  living  up  to  the  principles  of  their  holy  faith,  would  be  infinitely 
better  than  they  are ;  Protestants,  on  the  same  grounds,  Avould  be 
immeasui-ably  worse. 

In  the  Catholic  Church,  every  age  witnessed  the  spectacle  of 
thousands  of  individuals  rising  by  the  power  of  Grace,  above  the 
ordinary  range  of  righteous  living,  and  devoting  themselves  by  a 
perpetual  sacrifice  of  all  that  is  selfish,  for  the  good  of  their  neighbor  ; 
and  this  for  God’s  sake.  Protestantism,  after  three  hundred  years  of 
existence,  cannot  point  out  even  one  such  example  !  Why  is  it  ?  Now, 
the  true  type  of  the  faith  and  the  grace  of  the  Catholic  religion,  is 
to  be  found  in  those  higher  examples  to  which  we  have  just  referred, 
— whilst,  if  you  seek  a  corresponding  type,  somethitig  that  will 
exemplify  the  essence  of  Protestantism,  you  must  be  satisfied  with 


413 


INTRODUCTICN  TO  “IMPUTATION.” 

tlie  (3onceiitration  of  it  in  the  coarse  nncharitahleness  and  unchristian 
exhibitions  of  it  in  Exeter  Hall,  and  in  kindred  assemblies  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  It  is  true,’ and  honorable  as  true,  that  the  vast 
majority  of  Protestants,  in  both  countries,  look  upon  such  exhibitions 
with  regret,  and  virtuous  indignation ;  but  it  is  not  less  true,  that 
for  this,  the  genuine  interpreters  of  their  creed,  regard,  and  denounce 
them  as  only  half  Protestants,  and  half  “  Papists.”  There  is  more 
of  truth  in  this  uncourteous  statement  than  either  side  is  aware  of. 
Truth,  and  charity,  and  meekness,  and  patience,  and  all  good  works, 
are  contemplated  as  implied  conditions  of  justification  in  the  Catho¬ 
lic  system ;  whilst  they  are  as  implicitly  discarded  from  the  Protest¬ 
ant  justification,  except,  indeed,  as  consequences  which,  it  is  sup¬ 
posed,  must  necessarily  follow. 

But  the  stumbling-block,  with  many,  is  the  idea  that  according 
to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  man  is  himself  the  author,  in  part,  at  least, 
of^his  own  justification,  tln*ongh  the  supposed  efficacy  of  good  works, 
and  human  merits ;  and  that  thus  Christ  is  robbed  of  the  glory 
which  belongs  solely  to  Him.  Having  stated  briefly  the  Protestant 
doctrine,  we  shall  now  exhibit,  with  equal  brevity,  the  Catholic 
teaching  on  the  subject  of  justification. 

The  Catholic  Church  teaches,  also,  that  Christ  is  alone  the  author 
and  finisher  of  our  salvation — that  of  ourselves  we  can  do  nothing 
without  his  grace — that  all  grace  is  the  pure  gift  of  God — that  to 
Him  belongs  the  whole  and  undivided  glory.  This  is  the  faith  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  But  from  this  point  the  two  systems  begin  to  diverge. 

Supposing  the  existence  of  faith  in  the  soul,  which  is  regarded  in 
the  Catholic  system  as  the  “root  of  our  justification,”  God  imparts 
additional  grace,  by  which  it  is  increased  and  developed  into  the 
tree  of  a  holy  life,  laden  with  its  proper  fruits  of  Christian  charity. 
The  operation  of  this  grace  is  in  the  soul  itself,  renovating  its  powers, 
impaired  and  decayed  as  they  had  been  by  the  contagion  of  original 
and  actual  sin.  The  sacraments  are  appointed  channels  by  which 
Christ  communicates  this  grace,  and  applies  now,  individually,  to 
those  who  receive  it,  the  merits  of  its  own  infinite  sacrifice,  once 
offered  up  on  the  Cross.  He  may  communicate  grace  otherwise 
than  by  the  sacraments,  but  however  communicated  He  is  its  source 
and  author.  One  of  tlie  effects  of  this  grace,  is  to  enable  the  soul 
to  co-operate  with  the  inspirations  which  it  communicates.  Thus  it 
disposes  itself  to  receive  further  aid  from  heaven ;  and  being  still 
faithful  in  its  correspondence  with  the  new  grace,  it  goes  on  in  a  pro. 
gress  of  holiness,  by  which  it  approaches  nearer  and  nearer  to  the 
perfect  and  adorable  Author  of  its  being. 

In  all  this,  what  are  termed  good  works,  must  necessarily  enter. 
Sin  must  be  avoided;  for  sin  would  displease  God,  and  destroy  his 
grace  in  the  soul.  Charity,  the  love  of  God,  becomes  the  impulse  by 
which  such  a  soul  is  actuated.  She  will  endeavor  to  keep  the  com¬ 
mandments,  for  this  is  given  as  the  test  of  love.  Nay,  more,  she 
will  sometimes,  for  his  sake,  resolve  on  the  sacrifice  which  is  always 
uecessary  in  order  to  accom])lish  those  things  which  He  has  counseled. 


414 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


— without  having  reduced  them  to  the  rigor  of  a  universal  precept. 
She  will  sell  all  that  she  has,  and  give  it  to  the  poor,  in  order  to  have 
treasures  in  heaven.  Here  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  “  merit  of 
good  works,”  comes  in.  Is  it,  that  according  to  our  faith  anything 
tiiat  man  can  do,  even  with  the  aid  of  grace,  creates  a  right  in  virtue 
of  which  he  may  claim  a  recompense  from  God  ?  Certainly  not.  Is 
it  that  any  works  of  his  can  enter,  as  a  j^ortion,  into  the  price  by 
which  he  was  redeemed  ?  By  no  means.  Nevertheless,  the  Church 
teaches,  founding  her  doctrine  on  the  express  word  of  God,  and 
the  excess  of  his  goodness  and  mercy,  that  He  himself  bestows  on 
works  thus  performed  through  his  grace,  for  his  sake,  and  his  love, 
a  merit  which  lie  will  recompense  with  eternal  rewards.  But  are 
these  rewards  on  account  of  any  instrinsic  merit  in  the  actions  them¬ 
selves  as  the  mere  works  of  men  ?  Surely  not.  Long  before  Luther 
began  to  pervert  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Augustine  declared  in 
two  words  what  had  ever  been,  and  still  is,  and  ever  will  be,  the 
faith  of  the  Church  on  the  subject,  viz.:  Godin  rewarding  saints, 
but  crowns  in  them  the  effect  of  his  own  grace.  Where,  then,  is 
there  room  for  that  calumny  which  the  radical  error  of  the  sixteenth 
century  put  forth  against  the  Church  of  God,  viz.:  that  she  robbed 
Christ  of  his  glory  in  the  justification  of  sinners,  by  making  it  partly 
the  work  of  man  himself?  This  calumny  is  still  propagated,  and  by 
it  thousands  are  prevented  from  returning  to  the  fold  of  Christ. 

We  have  exemplified  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  by  a 
humati  comparison  ;  we  shall  endeavor  to  represent  the  Catholic 
tenet  by  another. 

A  man  gives  capital  for  trade  to  a  number  of  persons  who  are 
utterly  penniless  and  starving — more  to  one,  less  to  another.  He 
places  them  in  a  sphere  of  commerce,  in  which,  if  they  are  attentive, 
industrious,  and  prudent,  they  will  acquire  much  wealth  ;  but  in 
such  a  way,  that  the  measure  of  the  increase  is  also  owing  to  the 
goodness  of  him  who  gave  the  original  cajiital.  In  this,  two  things 
concur  to  the  same  end — his  liberality,  and  their  co-operation  ;  but  can 
they  glory  on  this  account,  as  if  their  fortune  was  owing  to  them- 
seives,  oi’  their  works  ?  Certainly  not ;  and  yet  the  same  goodness 
of  their  patron,  may  induce  him  to  reward,  as  merit  in  them,  that 
industry  with  which  they  employed  his  money.  And  what  is  this, 
after  all,  but  the  lesson  of  our  Lord’s  teaching  in  the  parable  of 
the  talents — and  for  the  i)roper  use  of  which  it  was  said,  “  Well 
done,  thou  good  and  faithful  servant,  because  thou  hast  been  faithful 
over  a  few  things,  I  will  set  thee  over  many ;  enter  into  the  joy  of 
the  Lord.” 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  justification,  as  taught  in  the_  Catholic 
Church;  the  grace  of  Christ,' which  is  his  gift,  is  the  capital, 
renovating  the  powers  of  the  soul,  and  enabling  her  to  enter  into 
the  commerce  of  charity,  which  has  God  and  the  neighbor  for  its 
objects,  and  by  which  “  treasures,”  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  may 
be  laid  up  in  heaven.  See  how  this  commerce  has  been  carried  on 
ill  the  Church  from  the  beginning !  See  the  apostles,  the  martyrs, 


CIIUKCH  DEBT  ASSOCIATION. 


415 


the  C(.mfessors,  the  virgins,  the  missionaries,  the  teachers  of  the 
ignorant,  the  friends  of  the  poor,  of  the  sick,  of  tlie  captives,  evei 
buriers  of  the  dead,  give  up  the  world,  renounce  their  own  ease, 
embrace  voluntarily  the  mortitications  of  the  Cross,  and  by  a 
perpetual  sacrifice  of  •self,  become  the  living,  and,  not  unfrequently, 
the  expiring  victims  of  their  love  for  their  fellow  beings,  and  of  Him 
who  died  for  all !  The  world  has  always  been  full  of  wickedness, 
and  always  will  be ;  but,  notwithstanding  this,  amidst  its  social  con¬ 
vulsions,  and  its  hereditary  corruptions,  see,  how  in  every  age  since 
the  beginning  of  Christianity,  men  rose  and  girded  themselves  up 
for  Christ’s  sake,  to  battle  in  the  armor  of  faith,  and  with  the  wea¬ 
pons  of  holy  charity,  against  the  peculiar  disorders  of  the  times. 
The  infidel  corsair  sweeps  the  sea,  carrying  Christians  into  slavery. 
But  the  grace  of  Christ  has  inspired  other  Christians  with  the  heroism 
of  charity,  by  which  they  bind  themselves  in  a  solemn  vow,  to  seek 
the  captive  in  a  barbarous  land,  to  redeem  him  with  money,  or,  if 
need  be,  to  take  on  their  own  limbs  the  chains  of  bondage  which 
they  have  stricken  from  his  !  Plague  and  pestilence  are  desolating 
the  land,  and  thousands  of  delicate  and  tender  virgins  are  ready  to 
rush  into  tlie  atmosphere  of  death,  and  ministering  at  the  bed-side 
of  the  sick  and  dying,  occupy  the  place  which  the  cowardice  of  mere 
flesh  and  blood  had  caused  even  relatives  to  abandon !  But  all  this, 
again,  is  through  Christ,  who  in8i)ires  this  supernatural  courage, 
and  crowns  as  merit  in  the  members  of  his  mystical  body,  the  fruits 
of  his  own  grace.  Now,  if  sucli  things  occur  at  all  times,  and  in 
all  places  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
world  has  yet  to  witness  the  first  example  of  them  in  the  Protestant 
communities,  does  it  not  follow  that  there  is,  there  must  some 
deep  and  radical  cause  to  account  for  the  ditterence  ?  Unquestionably, 
there  is.  The  Protestant  dogma  of  a  forensic  imputation  of  the 
merits  of  Christ,  and  of  justification  by  “  faith  alone,”  explains  it 
all.  No  other  key  is  necessary. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  in  the  ordinary  virtues  of  social  and 
domestic  life,  Protestants  are  inferior  to  any  others.  Still,  even 
these,  it  is  manifest,  derive  no  support  from  their  doctrine  of  justifi¬ 
cation,  and  must  be  accounted  for  on  other  grounds.  But  above 
the  range  of  every-day  duties,  performed  in  a  genteel  and  respect¬ 
able  manner,  where  is  there  a  name  that  stands  prominent  on  the 
page  of  self  sacrifice  for  the  good  of  others  ?  We  have  sometimes 
heard  the  names  of  Howard  and  Wilberforce  mentioned  as  instances. 
They,  certainly,  especially  the  foi’iner,  were  above  the  ordinary 
standard  in  the  reformed  ranks  ;  but  yet  how  immeasurably  below 
any  corresponding  type  in  the  Catholic  church !  The  one  visited 
the  institutions  for  erring  and  siiflering,  or  destitute  humanity, 
which  had  been  founded  by  the  spontaneous  charity  of  Catholic 
lands,  or  the  civil  laws  of  Protestants  states^ — and  recorded  the 
reflections  of  his  mind,  and  the  sympathies  of  his' benevolent  heart. 
Even  this  was  much.  The  other  poured  out  his  eloquence,  and  his 
gold,  if  you  please,  to  meliorate  the  condition  of  an  afflicted  portion 


416 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  his  fellow  men.  But  neither  of  them  showed  anything  like  a 
willingness  to  undergo  themselves,  for  their  Maker’s  sake,  a  portion 
of  the  sulferings  they  would  mitigate  or  remove. 

Tlie  Oxford  school  is  the  only  one  in  the  history  of  Protestantism 
that  seems  to  have  caught  a  ray  of  the  light  aud  warmth  of  Catholic 
laith  on  the  subject  of  justification,  Neither  is  this  so  manifest  in 
wliat  are  called  their  principles  as  in  the  tone  of  a  deeper  spirituality, 
})iety,  meekness,  and  a  desire  tc  foster  more  the  love  of  God,  and  of 
man.  These  feelings  appear  under  the  surface  of  their  writings  as 
if  struggling  for  an  issue,  and  a  right  direction.  Hence  the  innova¬ 
tions  with  which  they  are  charged.  Fasting,  confession,  and  most 
of  the  practical  devotions  of  the  Catholic  Church,  are  reported  to 
have  found  favor  in  their  sight.  But,  alas !  so  long  as  the  funda¬ 
mental  error  of  the  Anglican  system  on  justification  remains,  what 
practical  progress  can  they  make  with  the  masses  of  their  people  ?  It 
is  said  they  would  establish  Protestant  monasteries  ;  but  who  will 
be  the  monks  ?  That  they  would  have  daily  service  in  their  churches  ; 
but  who  will  attend  the  worship,  except  a  few  devout  females  whose 
hearts  unconsciously  obey  the  instinct  of  that  Catholic  faith  against 
wliich  their  understandings  have  been  so  perversely  instructed  ?  That 
they  would  rid  the  churches  of  pews,  so  that,  as  in  Catholic  times, 
the  rich  and  poor  may  worship  together ;  but  do  they  imagine  that 
the  haughty  lords  of  England,  who,  fenced  round  in  their  exclusive 
boxes,  will  hardly  kneel  before  their  Maker,  albeit  they  are  tempted 
by  soft  and  velvet  cushions  to  do  so, — will  mingle  in  any  direct  con¬ 
tact  of  equality  with  the  poor?  No,  no!  such  results  cannot  be 
anticipated,  so  long  as  both  are  taught  to  believe  that  justification  is 
by  “  faith  alone.”  But  going  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  temple, 
how  will  the  Oxford  divines  be  able  to  infuse  into  the  Anglican 
system  any  principle  of  spiritual  fruitfulness,  whilst  this  tenet 
prevails  ?  IIow  Avill  they  go  forth  to  their  rich  and  proud  country¬ 
men,  preaching,  like  St.  Paul,  the  “  chastisement  of  the  body,”  and 
the  “  crucifixion  of  the  flesh  ?”  How  will  they  meet  the  dark,  sour 
discontent  of  religious,  as  well  as  civil  chartism,  in  the  millions  of 
their  countrymen,  with  the  words  of  the  Savdour  Himself,  “  Blessed 
are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  God.”  How  will 
they  reduce  to  the  simplicity  of  faith,  and  the  obedience  of  Christ, 
the  spiritual  haughtiness  and  double-dealing  of  their  middle  classes? 
How,  in  a  word,  can  they  renovate  their  church,  or  distill  a  healing 
balm  into  any  of  the  wounds,  religious,  moral,  social,  or  physical, 
of  their  sufiering  land,  so  long  as  they  and  their  countrymen  remain 
alike  paralyzed  by  the  frozen  grasp  of  the  fundamental  error  of  their 
system  to  which  we  have  alluded  ?  They  may,  indeed,  preach  and 
write  with  the  force  and  eloquence,  and  even  unction  of  a  Chrys¬ 
ostom  or  a  Paul,  but  yet  so  long  as  the  present  system  of  the 
Anglican  Church  remains,  their  words  will  return  on  them  as  feathers 
cast  against  the  wind.  Still,  however,  all  these  things  are  in  the 
hands  of  God — who  can  employ  the  things  that  are  not,  to  cimfound 
the  things  that  are. 


CIVIL  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  POWEE. 


417 


LECTURE  BY  THE  RT-  REV.  BISHOP  HUG-HES  ON 
“THE  MIXTURE  OF  CIVIL  AND  ECCLESIAS¬ 
TICAL  POWER  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES,” 

DELIVERED  IN' THE  TABERNACLE,  NEW  YORK,  DECEMBER  18,  1843, 
ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  IRISH  EMIGRANT  SOCIETY. 

One  of  the  largest  and  most  intelligent  audiences  ever  collected 
within  the  walls  of  any  public  building  in  this  city,  assembled  in 
the  Tabernacle  to  hear  the  Lecture  of  the  Bishop.  Some  time 
before  the  hour  specified  in  the  advertisements,  every  seat  in  the 
house  was  taken  up,  and  by  the  time  the  Lecture  commenced  the 
standing  places  on  the  floor  and  galleries  were  occupied  in  like  man¬ 
ner.  Probably  no  lecture  ever  before  delivered  in  New  York  was 
so  well  attended,  there  must  have  been  at  least  3,500  persons  present. 
On  the  platform,  and  among  the  audience  were  several  of  the  leading 
divines  of  the  Episcopalian  and  other  Protestant  denominations. 

At  half-past  7  o’clock  precisely,  the  President  of  the  Irish  Emigrant 
Society,  Robert  Hogan,  Esq.,  made  a  few  introductory  remarks. 

When  at  length  the  applause  had  subsided  the  Bishop  commenced 
his  lecture  as  follows  :  • 

The  mixture  of  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  power  in  the  Govern¬ 
ments  of  the  Middle  Ages — in  other  words,  a  blending  or  union  of 
Church  and  State — a  theme  which  has  extended  over  the  Avhole  of 
Christendom,  for  the  last  1400  years;  a  theme  having  its  origin  at 
the  very  root  of  modern  States;  which  has  grown  up  with  their 
growth ;  v/hich  has,  it  must  be  confessed,  produced  much  of  the 
improvement  that  distinguishes  the  legislation  of  Christian  coun¬ 
tries  ; — but  a  theme,  also,  in  the  use  or  abuse  of  which  tears  and 
blood  have  been  m.ade  to  flow  in  mingled  torrents. 

A  hundred  folio  volumes  would  not  be  sufficient  to  develop  the 
origin  and  history,  to  analyze  the  connections  and  philosophy,  to 
detail  the  benefits,  and  to  point  out  the  evils,  Avhich  have  resulted 
from  this  system.  How,  then,  shall  I  be  able  to  compress  any 
adequate  idea  of  it,  into  the  lecture  of  a  single  hour  ?  Success  is 
more  than  I  can  promise ;  but  I  shall  make  the  attempt,  notwith¬ 
standing. 

The  reproach  of  having  first  sanctioned,  or  tolerated,  this  union  of 
Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  authority,  in  the  government  of  mankind,  is 
laid  at  the  door  of  the  Catholic  Church.  And  some  persons  may 
suppose,  that,  for  a  Catholic  Bishop  to  treat  a  question  in  which  his 
Church  and  his  order  are  so  deeply  implicated,  is  at  once  a  bold  and 
delicate  undertaking.  I  have  not  myself  any  such  feeling  on  the 
subject.  First,  because  it  is  tlie  genius  of  that  Church  to  conceal 
nothing  of  her  doctrines  or  of  her  history ;  since  the  scandals,  as 
well  as  the  good,  which  have  marked  her  progress  in  the  world,  are 
woven  up  in  the  annals  of  her  history,  by  her  own  best  witers, 
27 


418 


AEOHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


with  the  same  impartial  fidelity.  And,  secondly,  I  have  no  such 
feelings,  beciause  admitting  that  the  Catholic  Church  was  the  first  to 
tolerate  or  sanction  such  a  union,  I  do  not  know  the  name  of  any 
Protestant,  or  other  Christian  denomination,  that  has  hitherto 
practically  discovered  the  error  and  repudiated  the  connection.  As 
regards  denominations,  therefore,  if  this  be  a  sin,  -we  have  all  sinned 
alike.  Tlie  doctrine  is  maintained  with  more  dark  and  desperate 
determination  in  Russia,  than  it  is  in  Italy.  It  finds  more  numerous, 
more  obstinate,  and,  I  will  add,  more  able  advocates,  both  among 
Statesmen  and  Churchmen,  in  England,  than  it  does  in  Austria.  It 
is  cherished  with  as  unrelenting  a  tenacity  in  Holland,  in  Sweden, 
aud  Prussia— indeed  in  all  the  Protestant  States  of  Europe — as  it 
is,  or  ever  was,  in  any  Catholic  State.  In  fine,  to  show  what  a 
powerful  hold  this  doctrine,  as  a  principle,  seems  to  have  on  the 
human  mind,  I  may  mention,  that,  while  the  majority  of  the  clergy 
and  people  of  Scotland  go  out  from  the  Church-and-State  dependen¬ 
cies,  on  a  matter  of  fact,  still  they  maintain  the  rightfulness  of  the 
union,  as  a  true,  and  indisputable  principle.  If,  therefore,  this  is  the 
condition  of  Christendom  in  the  meridian  light  and  high  civilization 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  there  is  no  reason  to  blush  for  the  Catho¬ 
lic  faith,  for  having  tolerated,  or  approved  of  the  principle,  in  the 
rude  and  uncivilized  condition  of  mankind  in  former  ages.  It  is 
supposed,  however,  that  such  a  union  is  a  necessary  doctrine  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  This  is  utterly  false.  It  is  no  more  a  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  Chiirch,  than  the  destruction  of  the  old  Roman  Empire 
— or  the  incursions  of  the  barbarians,  by  which  its  fall  was  precipi¬ 
tated.  It  is  simply  a  liistorical  accident^  in  the  annals  of  the  Catho¬ 
lic  Church.  It  happened  so  ;  but  if  Providence  had  arranged  the 
outw'ard  affairs  of  the  world  dilierently,  it  would  have  happened 
otherwise. 

I  have  said,  that  to  this  rule  of  union  between  Church  and  State, 
there  is  one — and  only  one — exception.  This  maj^  surprise  some  of 
my  hearers ;  but  you  may  take  the  history  of  the  wdiole  human 
race,  in  all  times,  in  all  nations,  under  all  forms  of  government,  and 
wherever  you  find  men  living  under  any  social  organization,  there 
you  will  find  the  Clmrch  and  State  united : — save  and  except  the 
LJnited  States  of  America.  That  union,  or,  at  least,  the  spirit  of  it, 
had  been  imported  into  these  colonies,  while  they  wmre  in  subjection 
to  the  English  Government.  It  had  been  planted,  had  taken  root, 
and  had  already  yielded  its  bitter  and  bloody  fruit,  even  in  this 
virgin  hemisphere.  England  wdthheld  from  these  colonies  those 
privileges  of  civil  liberty,  of  Avhich  her  people  were  so  jealous  at 
home.  This  led  to  resistance  ;  resistance  led  to  strife  ;  and  in  the 
ranks  of  strife,  men  forgot  their  religious  diflerences ;  Catholics  and 
I^rotestants  of  every  denomination  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder,  until 
British  authority  was  totally  annihilated  within  their  boundaries. 
Here,  then,  Avas  an  interruption  of  all  hereditary  legislation,  the  link 
of  connection,  in  the  wdiole  social  organization,  had  been  broken  ; 
and  a  new  State  was  to  be  formed,  happily,  at  a  period  when  civiliza- 


LECTURE  OK  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


419 


lion  was  in  a  high  state  of  advancement !  The  same  men  who  had 
achieved  the  independence  of  the  country,  were  equal  to  the  task 
of  forming  a  Constitution  for  its  government ;  and  the  wisdom  of 
that  Constitution  is  as  just  a  subject  for  our  admiration,  as  the  valor 
by  which  the  right  to  make  it  had  been  won.  It  was  framed  for 
the  government  and  guidance  of  a  free  people,  who  claimed  to  be 
free  in  tlieir  civil  rights  and  opinions.  It  was  framed  to  secure,  at 
once,  order  and  equality  of  rights  ;  and,  considering  the  purpose 
which  it  was  intended  to  accomplish,  I  regard  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  as  a  monument  of  wisdom, — an  instrument  of 
liberty  and  right,  unequaled — unrivaled— in  the  annals  of  the 
human  race.  Every  separate  provision  of  that  immortal  document 
is  stamped  with  the  features  of  wisdom ;  and  yet  among  its  wise 
provisions,  what  I  regard  as  the  loisest  of  all,  is  the  brief,  simple,  but 
comprehensive  declaration,  that,  “  Cokgress  shall  make  ko  law 

RESPECTIKG  THE  ESTABLISHMEKT  OF  RELIGIOK,  OR  PROHIBITING  THE 
FREE  EXERCISE  THEREOF. 

This  event — forming  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  Governments — • 
took  place  more  than  half  a  century  ago.  It  has  hitherto  found  no 
imitators,  among  either  the  Protestant  or  Catholic  States  of  the 
world  ;  and  the  only  nations  that  have  hitherto  followed  the  example 
even  by  the  approach  of  remote  imitations,  are  Belgium  and 
France. 

The  subject  on  which  I  have  to  speak,  is  obviously  too  ample  to 
permit  that  I  should  enter  either  into  detail,  or  indulge  in  the  critical 
business  of  citing  historical  authorities.  In  truth,  it  is  rather  the 
spirit  and  the  philosophy  of  history,  in  regard  to  my  subject,  that 
must  engage  attention ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  I  would  not  have  it 
to  be  imagined  that  I  am  about  to  draw  a  picture  of  fancy.  On  the 
contrary,  I  hold  myself  responsible  for  the  histoiacal  correctness  of 
what  I  shall  advance,  and  am  prejiared  with  dates  .and  facts,  and 
special  authorities  from  cotemporary  historians,  whenever  it  may  be 
necessary  to  use  them. 

There  is  another  remark,  also,  which  it  is  important  to  keep  in 
view,  in  considering  the  subject ;  and  this  is,  that,  in  examining  any 
complex  historical  question — especially  a  question  which  is  connect¬ 
ed  with  the  development  of  civilization — we  should  not  read  the 
subject  backward.  If  we  were  to  ridicule  or  criticize  Columbus  and 
his  associates,  for  not  having  made  the  discovery  of  America  in 
steamers,  this  would  be  what  I  call  reading  history  backward.  His 
gallant  little  squadron  was  composed  of  almost  open  boats  ;  and  if 
he  had  not  been  able  to  accomplish  such  a  discovery,  even  so,  it  is 
quite  probable  that  the  ocean  would  never  have  felt  the  power  of 
steam. 

There  is  an  infancy,  a  growth,  and  development  of  the  public 
mind,  analogous  to  that  of  the  individual  understanding,  with  this 
difference,  that,  in  nations,  the  progress  counts  by  centuries,  which, 
in  individuals,  is  numbered  by  years.  To  judge  the  past  by  the 
ilie  preserU^  therefore,  is  absurd.  The  benefit  of  studying  history  at 


420 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


all,  consists  in  the  wisdom  which  may  be  gleaned  from  it — and  the 
wisdom  can  only  result  from  the  truth  which  it  furnishes — and  the 
truth  can  be  discovered  only  by  studying  it  in  the  proper  manner. 
In  fact,  there  is  another  great  dirierence  between  the  individual  and 
public  mind.  The  former  is  trained  up  by  other  minds,  already 
ripened  ;  but  the  latter  has  no  senior  tutor.  The  aggregate  mind, 
in  its  largest  sense,  moves  forward  on  the  mysterious  point,  dividing 
two  eternities — the  past  and  the  future.  It  has  a  certain  measure  of 
experience — a  certain  general  idea  of  the  ground  over  which  it  has 
travelled  ;  but  of  its  direction  or  tendency,  in  reference  to  the  future, 
all  is,  at  all  given  times,  uncertain  and  unknown.  There  is  a 
mysterious  veil,  at  all  times,  hanging  over  the  future,  which  moves 
onward  in  exact  keeping  with  the  advance  of  the  present,  so  that 
men  may  preserve  a  vague  recollection  of  what  has  happened ;  but 
no  man  is  able  to  tell,  with  certainty,  what  is  to  come.  Thus,  look¬ 
ing  back  at  the  history  of  civilization,  we  can  now  discover  that 
society  has  made  many  a  curve,  and  many  a  pause,  while  those  of 
whom  it  vras  composed  imagined  themselves  to  be  ahvays  in  motion, 
and  always  moving  on  a  straight  line.  We  suppose  this  to  be  the 
case  in  our  own  regard  ;  but  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  five-and* 
twentieth  century,  looking  back  to  the  nineteenth,  will  perceive  how 
divergent  from  the  straight  line  were  the  leading  impulses  and 
directions  of  our  age.  In  fact,  the  public  mind,  in  its  progress,  is 
like  the  course  of  a  vessel  at  sea.  It  is  obliged  to  tack  on  the  one 
side,  and  on  the  other,  sometimes  even  to  recede,  by  the  force  of 
circumstances  over  which  the  pilot  can  have  no  control.  To  judge 
of  its  action  at  any  given  time  of  history,  we  ought  to  assimilate 
our  own  mind  to  the  condition  of  the  public  mind,  at  such  a  'period. 
We  ought  to  forget.,  if  possible,  the  experience  which  has  been,  since 
then,  acquired  ;  but  taking  our  stand  at  the  origin  of  any  historical 
question,  to  travel  downward  with  the  current  of  its  development, 
instead  of  absurdly  rowing  our  shallow  boat  of  criticism  against  its 
mighty  stream. 

The  first  period  of  the  Christian  Church  was  a  period  in  which 
she  knew  the  State  only  as  the  source  of  her  sufferings  and  her 
triumphs.  Almost  all  her  pontiffs,  from  St.  Peter  downward,  during 
three  hundred  years,  sealed  their  mission  by  a  glorious  martyrdom. 
Her  missionaries  had  extended  themselves  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  Roman  empii’e.  They  had  penetrated  countries 
Ayhere  the  Roman  eagles  had  never  been  known  or  heard  of.  Her 
converts  were  numerous  in  all  the  provinces — in  the  capitol — in  the 
army — in  the  Senate — and  even  in  the  houses  of  the  Ciesars  them¬ 
selves.  Still,  the  frown  of  the  State  was  upon  her ;  and  to  escape 
it  she  found  a  hiding-place  in  the  catacombs  of  Rome.  If  she  met 
the  State  at  all,  it  was  only  at  the  tribunal  of  some  consul  or  gover¬ 
nor — or  on  the  scaffold,  to  witness  the  triumph  of  some  glorious 
member  of  her  body,  against  whom  the  sword  of  the  State  was  up¬ 
lifted,  for  no  other  crime  save  that  of  belief  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
At  length,  Constantine  is  triumphant  over  his  rivals  and  his  enemy. 


LECTURE  ON  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


421 


lie  embraces  tlie  Christian  religion  ;  and  the  Cross,  whi(!h  had 
Jiitherto  been  the  emblem  of  all  that  is  vile,  is  now  set  in  the 
imperial  diadem  as  the  most  precious  of  its  ornaments,  and  the 
most  expressive  type  of  its  duties.  The  condition  of  the  world, 
even  the  civilized  world  of  the  Homan  empire,  was  lamentable  in 
the  extreme ;  and,  unless  it  should  be  derived  from  the  Cvosh^  there 
was  no  Iiope  of  its  renovation.  Every  department  of  society  was 
depraved,  not  only  by  the  natural  depravity  of  man’s  heart,  but  that 
depravity  itself  was  incorporated  in  almost  all  the  legal  and  social 
institutions  of  the  degenerate  times.  In  the  family,  the  father  alone 
was  under  the  protection  of  the  law  ;  the  wife,  the  children,  the 
slaves — or  rather  all  were  then  slaves — had  no  protection  beyond 
the  caprice  of  the  husband,  the  father,  and  the  master.  His  order 
was  enough  to  consign  these,  or  any  of  them,  even  to  public 
prostitution  ;  against  which,  neither  the  laws  of  the  empire,  nor 
the  morality  of  Paganism,  opposed  a  barrier.  Now,  to  allow,  thus, 
disorder  and  corruption  in  the  family,  was  to  vitiate  and  corrupt 
the  whole  of  society  in  its  very  root.  Hence,  the  public  crimes 
which  history  has  recorded  of  that  age,  and  those  immediately 
preceding. 

The  people  plundered  by  every  petty  officer  of  the  government — 
the  oppression  and  impotence  of  the  rural  and  provincial  pojmla- 
tions — the  licentious  and  unpunished  conduct  of  the  Roman  soldiers 
— the  debaucheries  and  cruelties  of  the  imperial  court,  and  all  con¬ 
nected  with  it,  present  a  picture  which  causes  the  heart  to  sicken  at 
the  condition  of  humanity  at  that  period — the  setting  sun  of  old 
Roman  civilization.  As  one  fact,  to  give  an  idea  of  the  times,  I 
will  mention  that,  during  the  hundred  years  which  preceded  the 
age  of  Constantine,  the  average  reign  of  each  emperor  was  but 
two  and  a  half  years  ;  that,  out  of  forty  emperors,  more  than  one- 
half  had  perished  by  a  death  of  violence ;  that  the  Praetorian 
Guards  and  their  prefect  had  put  up  the  throne  of  the  great  empire, 
at  public  auction,  to  the  highest  bidder  ;  and  that  the  purchaser 
h.ad  scarcely  time  to  wear  off  the  novelty  of  his  elevation,  when  he 
was  murdered  to  create  an  opportunity  for  a  new  sale.  Constan¬ 
tine  moved  the  seat  of  empire  to  Byzantium,  now  Constantinople. 
His  successors  in  the  empire,  with  a  few  exceptions,  fell  iiffinitely 
below  him  in  every  attribute  of  talent,  capacity,  and  virtuous  great¬ 
ness.  Of  his  successors,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  in  general,  that,  with 
some  few  exceptions,  they  were  lost  in  luxury  and  effeminacy ; 
showing  always  a  greater  disposition  to  meddle  in  the  metajffiysics 
of  theological  disputation,  than  either  to  govern  or  defend  their 
empire,  according  to  the  better  morals  of  the  law  they  professed. 
There  is  not  a  single  dispute  of  the  subsequent  ages,  in  which  they 
did  not  interpose  their  sovereign  will,  on  one  side  or  on  the  other. 
By  joining  with  the  Iconoclasts,  or  image-breakers  of  the  eighth 
century,  they  prepared  the  way  for  the  Greek  schism ;  and  the 
Greek  schism,  in  its  turn,  ])repared  the  way  for  their  utter  annihi¬ 
lation,  by  wrenching  from  their  feeble  hands,  to  be  transferred  to 


422 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


the  disciples  of  Mahomet,  that  sceptre,  of  which  they  were  un 
worthy.  When  such  weakness  and  snqh  imbecility  were  at  the 
nead  and  heart  of  the  Imperial  Government,  the  events  which  oc¬ 
curred  througliout  its  extremities  ceased  to  be  surpiasing.  The 
oarbarians  of  every  name,  and  of  no  name,  from  the  East  and 
North  of  Europe,  from  the  shores  of  the  Baltic  and  the  interior  of 
Tartary,  rushed  into  the  empire,  as  if  by  concert,  and  inundated  it 
with  their  savage  and  ferocious  habits.  Huns,  Burgandians,  Goths, 
and  Vandals,  all  came  in  mingled  confusion,  to  take  ])ossession  of 
the  undefended  provinces,  as  of  a  rich  but  abandoned  prey.  Not 
by  a  single  irruption — though  even  that  would  have  been  sufficient 
to  extinguish  the  feeble  remains  of  Roman  institutions  ;  but,  wave 
after  wave,  from  this  inexhaustible  ocean  of  ignorance  and  barba¬ 
rism,  rushed  with  destructive  fury  over  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  Roman  empire. 

It  would  be  wrong  to  say,  that  they  had  not  brought  with  them 
certain  rude  elements,  from  which  a  future  civilization  might,  under 
a  propitious  culture,  be  matured,  and  ripen.  But  their  code  of 
police  was  suited  rather  to  the  common  good,  in  their  common  con¬ 
dition  of  a  banditti  of  robbers,  than  to  any  state  of  settled,  peace¬ 
able,  and  social  life.  The  type  of  the  civilization  which  they  came 
to  overthrow  and  extinguish  was,  in  their  mind,  with  all  its  develop¬ 
ments  and  accidents,  a  type  of  effeminacy,  which  they  held  in  the 
most  sovereign  and  unutterable  contempt.  Of  this  type,  they 
looked  upon  Roman  legislation,  Roman  habits,  architecture,  books, 
learning,  arts  and  sciences,  as  the  pernicious  offspring.  Hence,  they 
regarded  them  as  things  to  be  destroyed,  with  the  same  determina¬ 
tion  which  had  vanquished  the  authors  of  them.  Lombardy,  Gaul, 
the  southern  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean,  Spain,  and  other  portions 
of  Europe,  the  choicest  of  Imperial  Rome,  became  the  seat  of  their 
ravages  and  future  habitations.  Other  hordes  may  have  come  subse¬ 
quently  to  disturb  their  residence  ;  but,  hnally,  the  whole  remnant  of 
Roman  government,  Roman  laws,  and  usages,  and  institutions,  are 
made  to  give  place  to  the  crude  and  barbarous  habits  of  these  igno¬ 
rant,  but  warlike  invaders  of  the  North. 

It  would  seem  that,  under  such  a  catastrophe,  there  was  no  hope 
for  the  renovation  of  the  human  mind.  The  only  models  of  govern¬ 
ment,  which  the  ancient  world  had  left,  would  seem  to  have 
perished. 

Government  and  society,  upon  a  large  scale  at  least,  must  result 
from  the  exercise  of  'power  somewhere.  But  here  were  men,  who 
acknowledged  no  power  on  earth,  and  hardly  any  in  heaven  ;  they 
may  be  said  to  have  had  no  law,  but  their  own  will ;  and,  it  may 
further  be  said,  that  it  was  not  in  their  nature  to  submit  to  any 
Other. 

Out  of  this  chaos — not  the  deliberations  of  men,  but  the  irresisti¬ 
ble  force  of  necessity,  brought  about,  slowly,  something  like  Civil 
Government.  This  government  is  stamped  with  all  the  rude  preju¬ 
dices  of  those  on  whose  will  its  formation  depended.  Privilege, 


LECTURE  ON  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


423 


distinction,  power,  were  supposed  to  be  the  prerogative  of  the  bold, 
the  daring  and  the  few  ;  submission,  obedience,  degradation,  were 
conceived  as  resulting  from  the  natural  distribution  of  things,  in 
reference  to  the  weak,  the  timid,  and  the  many.  Hence  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  what,  at  a  later  period,  when  it  became  better  organized,  is 
known  as  the  Feudal  System. 

In  a  period  of  social  disorder,  and  the  absence  of  all  laws,  except 
the  laws  of  physical  strength,  life  and  protection  are  the  first  neces¬ 
sities  of  man.  The  common  people,  therefore,  for  the  sake  of  life 
and  the  protection  of  it,  attached  themselves  to  the  train  of  chief¬ 
tains  from  whom  these  first  claims  of  human  existence  might  be 
expected.  The  chieftain  was  bound  to  provide  for  their  subsistence 
and  protection.  They,  on  their  part,  as  an  equivalent,  were  bound 
to  go  to  war  with  him  ;  and  to  fight  for  him,  in  every  quarrel, 
aggressive  or  defensive,  which  he  might  be  pleased  to  undertake. 
They  were  his  vassals  ;  and  he  was,  in  the  first  stage,  their  baron 
or  lord  ;  afterward,  when  the  system  refined  and  developed  itself 
more,  this  order  was  extended  and  diversified  into  lords  and  earls, 
and  marquises  and  dukes.  In  this  system,  framed  in  such  circum¬ 
stances,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  the  desire  of  extending 
their  several  territories,  or  of  defending  them,  as  it  might  happen — 
where  all  claimed  the  right  of  assailing  his  neighbor,  when  he  found 
himself  strong  enough  for  the  undertaking — must  have  produced 
incessant  warfare.  Those  who  were  barons  or  lords,  in  reference  to 
the  vassals  who  were  dependent  on  them,  became  themselves  vassals, 
in  regard  to  others,  on  whom  they,  in  turn,  felt  dependence.  Thus, 
the  king  might  be  regarded  as  the  head  baron  of  the  nation  ;  and 
yet,  there  are  instances  in  which  even  he  held  his  fief,  as  if  he  were 
a  vassal  to  some  of  his  own  subjects.  Naturally,  this  condition  of 
things,  wherever  it  pre\’ailed,  was  calculated  to  retard  civilization. 
It  shows  that  the  only  thing  held  in  high  estimation  was,  not  justice, 
nor  arts,  por  learning,  nor  moral  rights  of  any  description,  but  a 
brave  heart,  a  strong  bow,  and  stout  arm.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  Europe  should  have  been,  then,  as  one  great  univer¬ 
sal  camp  of  war.  Every  castle  was  a  fortress — every  peasant  a 
soldier — every  baron  a  species  of  monarch,  who  could  summon  and 
sound  to  battle,  whenever  he  pleased.  The  only  spot  that  was 
neutral,  was  the  Church  and  its  sacred  precincts.  Nothing  can 
prove  this  better  than  the  institution  of  those  times  which  is  called, 
“  Treve  de  Dieu,”-  or  the  “  Peace  of  God.”  This  was  a  rule,  for¬ 
bidding  them  to  go  to  war  from  Wednesday  evening  till  Monday 
morning,  of  each  week.  This  was  the  first  inroad  made  iqion  the 
determined  martial,  or  rather  predatory  habits  of  those  ages. 

The  first  great  variation  from  the  monotony  of  interior  confusion 
was  the  Crusades.  The  enthusiasm  which  that  enterprise  inspired, 
appears  to  us  like  a  moral  contagion.  Like  other  great  events, 
it  produced  its  evil  and  its  advantageous  consequences.  It  tended 
to  destroy  serfage — that  species  of  temperate  slavery  which  pre¬ 
vailed  in  the  Middle  Ages.  It  exhausted  the  barons,  and  directed 


424 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


against  the  foreign  enemy  those  fighting  propensities  wiiich  they 
had  hitherto  indulged  against  each  other.  It  enlarged  the  pmblic 
mind,  and  imbued  it  with  some  notions  of  navigation,  commerce, 
arts,  and  learning.  After  this  period  had  passed  away,  literature 
begins  to  revive  ;  universities  are  founded  ;  the  State  begins  to 
come  out  of  the  social  relations,  with  features  of  greater  distinct¬ 
ness.  Order,  at  least  of  an  imperfect  kind,  begins  to  take  the  place 
of  brute  force.  The  features  of  Feudalism  begin  to  fade  away ; 
and,  as  we  rise  into  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  we  dis¬ 
cover  the  public  mind,  as  if  gazing  on  the  bright  dawn  of  civiliza¬ 
tion  such  as,  unhappily,  the  day  has  not  realized.  The  East  Indies, 
which  had  been  lost  from  the  map  of  the  world  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  are  re-discovered  by  Portuguese  navigators.  An  Italian 
sailor  ].fiucks  up  a  new  hemisphere,  from  the  untravelled  waters  of 
the  Western  ocean  ;  printing  is  invented  ;  architecture  and  the 
arts  are  all  revived.  Greek  and  Roman  literature  become  a  very 
passion  ;  and  the  public  mind  seemed  to  enter  upon  a  new  career, 
with  a  young  energy,  an  enthusiasm,  a  capacity,  a  riiieness  for  im¬ 
provements,  such  as  the  world  had  never  seen  before. 

Such  is  a  general,  but  imperfect  outline  of  what  Christendom 
had  passed  through,  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
During  the  course  of  that  century,  a  new  species  of  warfare  inter¬ 
rupted,  as  I  would  say  (leaving  to  others  the  same  right  to  hold  a 
different  opinion),  the  onward  progress  of  the  human  mind.  Hith¬ 
erto  the  Christian  commonwealth  had  preserved  its  unity  ;  and  if 
there  had  been  wars,  they  had  had  for  their  object  the  things  of  the 
present  world.  Now,  hov^ever,  humanity  is  to  be  afflicted  witli 
the  wars  respecting  the  world  to  come.  The  question  divided 
States  as  well  as  individuals  ;  and  each  took  the  side  which  its 
conviction  of  principle,  or  its  politicjil  interest,  seemed  to  determine. 
Since  that  period,  the  progress  of  the  public  mind  has  not  been 
pro})ortionate  to  the  advantages  that  had  been  acquired,  and  to  the 
time  that  has  since  elapsed. 

In  the  hasty  view  which  I  have  taken,  as  to  the  condition  of  the 
State,  during  these  ages,  you  will  not  suppose  that  I  have  purposed 
to  exhibit  anything  like  the  general  detail  of  society,  or  of  the  princi¬ 
ples  and  feelings,  which  formed  its  inward  and  daily  workings.  For 
it  happens,  in  history,  that  the  things  which  are  least  honorable  to 
human  nature,  are  those  which  are  most  conspicuously  displayed. 
Thus,  to  have  an  idea  of  our  own  times,  of  the.  state  of  morality  in 
our  country,  or  even  in  our  city,  future  ages  may  have  recourse  to 
our  laws,  the  records  of  our  courts,  and  systems  of  jmlice.  All  the 
rest  will  have  sunk  away  and  be  forgotten,,  or  remembered  only  in 
the  institutions  which  private  virtue  shall  have  founded  for  the 
relief  of  cotemporary  destitution.  Indeed,  viewed  in  this  light,  the 
Middle  Ages  will  present  features  altogether  different  from  those 
which  the  truth  of  history,  and  the  nature  of  my  subject,  required 
me  to  exhibit.  And  as  a  pi’oof  of  this,  a  distinguished  English 
writer  has  published  a  work  on  these  same  ages,  in  no  less  than 


JLECTURE  ON  THE  MIHHLE  AGES. 


425 


eleven  volumes,  in  whicli  lie  shows  clearly  and  with  a  depth  and 
variety  of  erudition  that  are  perfectly  astonishing — that  every  por¬ 
tion  of  our  blessed  Saviour’s  sermon  on  the  mount,  was  reduced  to 
practice  during  that  identical  period.  What,  then,  does  the  whole 
prove  ?  Sini[)ly,  that  there  was  then,  as  there  is  now,  a  singular 
mixture  of  good  and  evil ;  with  this  difference,  perhaps,  that  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  both  good  and  evil  were  vigorously  carried  out ; 
while  the  simplicity  of  those  times  knew  none  of  the  artifices,  by 
which  our  superior  advantages  enable  us  to  conceal  the  latter,  and 
to  display  the  former,  as  much  as  possible. 

It  is  now  time  to  consider  the  Church,  descending  to  us,  step  by 
step,  and  day  by  day,  with  that  order  of  things  in  the  State  which 
I  have  just  attempted  to  describe.  It  is  manifest,  not  only  by  reason 
but  also  by  the  experience  of  all  nations,  that  if  moral  power  is  to 
have  any  place  at  all  in  the  estimate  of  legislators,  this  moral  power 
must  necessarily  be  founded  on  religion.  Civil  laws  regulate  the 
external  actions  of  men  ;  but  religion  extends  to  the  interior  work¬ 
ings  of  those  affections  of  the  human  heart,  which  pn-ecede  the 
outward  action.  Hence,  too,  it  has  been  said  by  a  philosopher, 
that  if  religion  were  banished  from  the  social  relations  of  men, 
society  itself  would  become  little  better  than  pjandemonium.  It  is 
not,  then,  wonderful  that  the  Church,  descending  side  by  side  with 
the  succession  of  events,  in  the  order  of  things  I  have  described, 
should,  by  choice  or  by  necessity,  have  exercised  a  remarkable  influ¬ 
ence  on  tb.e  nascent  institutions  of  every  age.  She  was  the  deposi¬ 
tory  of  the  Christian  faith — she  preserved  its  inspired  annals,  the 
sacred  Scriptures — she  had  learned  from  the  lij)s  of  its  Divine  Au¬ 
thor,  the  high  and  holy  truths  which  it  was  important  for  mankind 
to  know,  and  which  it  was  her  special  mission  to  preach  and  to  pro¬ 
pagate  throughout  “  all  nations.”  Her  s]>here  of  action  was  in  the 
midst  of  the  world  and  among  men,  whatever  might  be  the  culture 
or  the  confusion  of  their  condition.  It  is  time,  then,  to  consider 
what  the  Church  is  in  itself,  and  what  it  was,  historically,  in  its 
connection  with  the  States  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Li  itself,  the 
Church  is  essentially  independent  of  all  States,  and  of  all  forms  of 
government.  Its  true  and  pi-imary  office  is  to  preach  the  doctrines 
of  our  Saviour.  It  received  direct  and  absolute  power  from  Him 
for  that  purpose.  As  a  divinely  appointed  society,  the  Church  has 
the  right  to  make  laws  for  her  own  government,  and  for  the  ]:)roper 
guidance  of  her  members,  inde})endent  of  any  power  on  the  earth. 
If  she  has  at  times  interfered  with  the  civil  prerogatives  of  tem¬ 
poral  sovereigns,  her  right  to  do  so  is  not  founded  on  her  divine 
character  ;  but  resulted,  either  from  the  concessions  of  those  states 
themselves,  or  from  the  absolute  exigency  of  circumstances. 

It  was  impossible  that,  during  the  periods  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
the  Church  should  not  have  taken  a  prominent  part  in  the  affairs  of 
Christendom.  This  is  explained  by  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 
From  the  very  moment  Constantine  became  a  Christian,  he  pro- 
fesstal  a  new  code  of  moral  law,  which  denied  him,  though  Emperor 


426 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  Rome,  the  right  to  do  evil,  either  in  his  public  or  private  capacity. 
Every  attempt  which  he  made  to  reform  the  corrupt  laws,  and  the 
yet  more  corrupt  administration  of  them,  under  Paganism — which 
he  had  just  renounced — naturally  excited  the  opposition  of  those 
who  still  adhered  to  the  bloody  spectacles  of  the  Amphitheatre,  and 
the  worship  of  Olympus.  The  new  and  more  humane  elements, 
derived  from  the  Christian  religion,  and  infused  into  the  ancient 
legislative  code,  required  new  officers  for  their  proper  administra¬ 
tion.  These,  where  they  could  be  found,  were  naturally  taken  from 
among  the  Christians  ;  and  certain  departments  were,  by  usage,  if 
not  by  law,  consigned  to  the  bishops  of  the  Church.  Thus  the 
imfortunate  portions  of  the  human  race  were  especially  placed  under 
their  care.  The  case  of  the  widow  and  the  orphan  were  consigned  to 
their  protection  ;  prisoners,  in  like  manner  ;  the  poor,  the  ignorant, 
and  the  slaves.  From  that  moment  it  became  necessary  for  the  civil 
legislator,  in  abrogating  old,  or  in  enacting  new  laws,  to  consider 
how  far  they  were  in  accordance  with  the  moral  principles  of  the 
Christian  faith.  The  laws  touching  marriage  and  divorce,  and  oth¬ 
ers — lying  at  the  very  root  of  social  existence — were  obviously  of 
this  description.  Hence,  intercourse  with  the  clergy,  the  acknowl¬ 
edged  interpreters  of  the  Christian  faith,  became  a  necessary  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  imperial  transition  from  the  old  to  the  new  system. 
The  laws  which  he  enacted  subsequently  to  his  conversion,  and 
which  are  still  found  in  the  code  of  Theodosius  the  younger,  show 
the  effects  of  his  new  connection  with  the  Christian  Church.  The 
Emperors  had  hitherto  been  absolute  and  despotic  in  their  power — 
he  puts  limits  to  liis  own  authority.  The  slaves  had  hitherto  en¬ 
joyed  little  more  legal  protection  than  the  ox  of  the  field — he 
makes  laws  to  protect  them,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  their 
gradual  emancipation.  He  mitigates  the  cruelties  of  Roman  pun¬ 
ishment  ;  he  restrains  the  rapacity  of  magistrates  ;  he  checks  the 
injustice  of  the  rich  against  the  poor ;  he  repeals  the  laws  which 
authorize  concubinage  ;  he  puts  limits  to  the  avarice  of  usurers  ; 
he  takes  precautions  against  the  destitution  of  poor  children,  and 
provides  for  their  support  at  the  public  expense.  In  reference  to 
the  Church,  he  authorized  and  encouraged'  the  erection  of  temples, 
and  the  solemnities  of  public  worship.  The  immunities  which  he 
conferred  upon  the  clergy,  as  a  distinct  body,  wore  exceedingly 
limited.  He  merely  exempted  them  from  personal  taxation,  and 
from  public  service  ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that  he  conferred  the 
same  exemption  upon  physicians,  and  the  professors  of  Belles- 
Lettres. 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  formal  union  of  Church 
and  State,  either  expressly  or  implied,  during  his  reign.  And  the 
influence  which  was  exercised  by  the  clergy  in  civil  affiiirs,  from 
that  period  until  the  total  destruction  of  the  empire  in  Western 
Europe,  was  entirely  of  a  moral  nature.  Tlie  sanctity  of  their 
lives,  in  most  instances — the  more  elevated  character  of  their  virtue 
■ — their  sympathies  for  the  wretched,  then  works  of  charity  and  zeal. 


LECTURE  ON  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


42’? 


must  account,  principally,  for  the  influence  Avhich  they  exercised 
during  that  period.  That  they  began  to  be  regarded  by  the  people 
Avith  veneration  and  aflection,  as  their  best  friends,  is  undeniable, 
and  easily  accounted  for.  The  authorities  of  the  State,  also,  found 
among  them  men  of  superior  learning,  whom  they  often  took  to 
their  counsels  in  critical  matters  appertaining  to  secular  aflairs.  It 
was  the  age  of  the  Augustines,  the  Leos,  the  Chrysostoms,  the 
Jeromes,  and  the  other  great  writers  and  fathers  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Already  had  the  Church  framed  such  laws  as  were  re¬ 
quired  for  the  order  of  her  clergy  and  the  government  of  her  mem¬ 
bers.  These  laws  were  founded  on  the  new  principles  of  Christian 
equity,  and  adapted,  as  a  code  of  discipline,  to  the  situation  of  the 
faithful.  They  were  as  canons — rules — the  authority  necessary  for 
the  execution  of  which  rested,  as  a  spiritual  authority,  in  the  Church 
itself.  The  highest  penalty  known  to  the  Church,  then,  or  at  any 
time,  was  excommunication.  But  this  spiritual  weapon  acquired, 
in  the  lapse  of  ages,  and  from  another  source,  civil  consequences 
A\diich  did  not  belong  to  it  as  an  instrument  of  ecclesiastical  disci¬ 
pline.  Successive  Christian  emperors,  either  from  a  zeal  for  religion, 
or  with  a  desire  to  promote  the  Avelfare  of  their  people,  took  por¬ 
tions  of  this  ecclesiastical  discipline,  and  incorporated  them  with 
the  civil  laws  in  the  jurisprudence  of  the  State,  attaching  to  the 
violation  of  them  civil  penalties,  which  it  was  never  pretended  the 
Church  had  intrinsic  power  to  inflict.  It  is  in  this  gi'adual  and 
almost  imperceptible  manner  that  the  mixture  or  the  union  of  the 
two  powers  seems  to  have  occurred.  In  our  first  popular  view  of 
the  subject,  we  are  apt  to  imagine  that  the  Church  and  the  State 
Avere  two  great  tyrants,  Avho,  if  they  had  kept  separated,  could  not 
have  accomplished  much  to  the  detriment  of  mankind ;  and  Avho, 
for  this  reason,  agreed  to  unite  for  the  purpose  of  more  eftectually 
enthralling  their  common  subjects.  No  phantom  of  the  imagina¬ 
tion  can  be  more  false  or  delusive  than  this.  The  union  took  place 
in  the  manner  I  have  described  ;  and  at  the  period  of  its  occur¬ 
rence,  it  is  quite  probable,  that  neither  the  heads  of  the  State,  nor 
the  authorities  of  the  Church,  had  the  slightest  anticipations  of  the 
ulterior  consequences  to  Avhich  it  has  led.  It  thus  became  incor- 
])orated  in  the  imperial  code  of  public  jurisprudence,  as  Ave  see  by 
the  compilations  of  the  Emperors  Justinian  and  Theodosius  the 
younger. 

As  an  instrument  of  government,  however,  even  this  code  (of 
the  Emperors  Justinian  and  Theodosius  the  younger)  perished  Avith 
the  fallen  poAver  of  the  Empire.  The  barbarians  laughed  at  written 
laws  ;  and  Avhen  civil  order,  and  government,  and  everything  apper¬ 
taining  to  the  habits  of  organized  life,  had  been  overthroAvn  by 
them,  in  their  several  irruptions,  there  remained  hardly  a  hope  foi 
the  restoration  of  society,  except  in  the  living  authority  of  the 
clergy  and  the  Church.  AVhatever  m.ay  be  our  judgment  of  the 
question,  in  the  hap])ier  organization  of  modern  times,  it  is  doubt¬ 
ful  to  my  OAvn  mind,  whether  in  such  a  universal  crisis,  the  Church 


428 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


would  not  have  been  recreant  to  her  duty,  if  she  had  not  rushed  to 
the  rescue  of  humanity.  It  is  clear,  that  if  her  own  doctrine  and 
constitution  had  not  been,  according  to  the  intention  of  her  founder, 
indestructible,  they  too  would  have  been  carried  away  by  the 
deluge  of  ignorance  and  barbarism  which  overswept  the  world. 
When  the  turbid  waters  had  settled,  all  that  remained  was  chaos  ; 
and  on  the  Church  devolved  the  work  of  the  new  creation.  She 
alone,  in  the  midst  of  the  ruins,  preserved  the  memory  and  all  that 
survived  of  the  annals  of  the  times  that  had  passed  away.  En¬ 
tirely  destitute  of  physical  power,  she  could  exercise  but  a  moral 
force,  whitth  the  rude  nations  entirely  disregarded.  The  first  thing 
necessary,  is  to  win  them  over  to  the  religion  of  Christ ;  and  though 
the  self-destroying  virtues  of  that  religion  were  but  little  heeded 
by  those  martial  proselytes,  still  it  was  an  important  point,  even  for 
tbeir  temporal  melioration,  that  they  should  be  believers  in  the 
Christian  doctrines,  which  they  did  not  always  practice. 

Three  things  are  obviously  necessary  for  the  formation  and  well¬ 
being  of  society ;  order,  liberty,  and  the  power  of  defence.  It  is 
manifest,  that  liberty,  without  order,  is  licentiousness  ;  and  the  diffi¬ 
culty  in  the  conditions  of  those  new  populations  was,  first  and  most 
of  all,  the  absence  of  order.  They  were  to  be  civilized  ;  and  this 
could  not  be  accomplished  without  subordination.  To  say,  then, 
that  the  interference  of  the  Church,  at  that  period,  was  a  meddling 
with  civil  government,  as  the  term  is  now  understood,  would  con¬ 
vey  an  entirely  false  meaning.  Properly  speaking,  there  was  no 
civil  state  in  existence.  All  was  confusion,  rapine,  tumult,  and  dis¬ 
order.  Yet,  in  all  this  chaos  and  confusion,  there  lay  the  germ  of 
all  our  modern  States,  which  would  have  perished,  in  all  probability, 
had  not  the  Church  provided,  as  best  she  could,  for  its  culture  and 
future  development.  The  clei'gy  became,  to  a  certain  extent,  and 
of  necessity,  the  defenders  of  the  weak  against  the  oppressions  of 
the  strong.  The  Councils  of  the  Church  are  no  longer  exclusively 
em[)loyed  in  defining  the  great  truths  of  the  Christain  faith.  The 
moral  and  social  condition  of  the  people,  as  well  as  of  the  clergy, 
engaged  their  particular  attention.  The  civil  power  is  everywhere 
paralyzed  and  rendered  impotent,  by  the  turbulent  independence  of 
chieftains  ;  and  the  people — that  is,  the  whole  mass  of  the  common 
people — are  crushed  to  the  earth,  by  the  power  which  those  chief¬ 
tains  claimed  to  exercise  over  them.  In  the  enactments  of  several 
of  tlie  synods,  during  those  ages,  questions  appertaining  to  the 
State  are  treated  and  disposed  of.  The  council  is  a  kind  of  mixed 
assembly — a  species  of  general  European  Congress — in  which,  after 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities  have  transacted  what  appertains  to 
doctrinal  matters,  princes  and  the  heads  of  States  take  part  in 
forming  regulations  aflecting  their  own  subjects  ;  and  this,  for  the 
obvious  purpose  of  giving  those  enactments  a  greater  moral  sanction^ 
as  if  coming  from  the  approbation  and  authority  of  the  Church. 
This  was  particularly  the  ease  with  the  great  Council  of  Lateran. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  that  even  under  the  Empire,  the  bishops 


LECTURE  OX  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


429 


sometimes  discharged  the  office  of  civil  judges,  in  case  the  parties 
were  Christians,  and  by  mutual  consent  appealed  to  them  for  their 
decision.  After  the  events  we  have  described,  and  in  the  new  order 
of  things,  this  was  still  more  natural  and  necessary.  They  alone 
had  some  idea  of  the  ancient  jurisprudence ;  and  the  people  natu¬ 
rally  flocked  to  their  tribunal,  rather  than  to  the  barbarous  ordeals, 
or  proofs  by  fire,  by  water,  and  by  duel,  which  the  Northmen  were 
accustomed  to  employ.  But  the  -part  which  the  bishops  took  in 
civilizing  the  legislation  of  States,  is  too  extensive  to  allow  me  to 
dwell  upon  it  in  detail. 

We  must  rather,  now,  raise  our  eyes  to  those  great  events,  in 
which  the  head  of  the  Church  on  earth  incurred  so  much  censure 
of  modern  times.  We  must  not  forget,  that  the  system  of  govern¬ 
ment  w'hich  then  prevailed,  and  the  influence  of  the  Church,  as 
diffused  among  the  people,  made  it  the  constant  interest  of  those 
who  were  unjustly  oppressed  by  superior  force,  to  strengthen  their 
cause  by  whatever  support  might  be  derived  from  the  sanction  of 
religion.  Hence  the  frequent  appeals  from  the  jirinces  to  the  Pope, 
to  shield  their  rights  against  the  unscrupulous  invasions  of  rivals 
and  enemies.  It  frequently  happened,  that  as  all  propei’ty  or  rights 
under  the  protection  of  the  Church  were  deemed  more  sacred  and 
inviolable,  princes,  for  their  better  security,  became  vassals  of  the 
Holy  See ;  and  hence,  the  origin  of  those  claims,  which  many  of 
the  popes  cherished  and  enforced,  to  be  regarded  as  the  first  rulers 
of  the  temporal,  as  they  were,  in  reality,  of  the  spiritual  kingdom. 
It  is,  indeed,  quite  true,  that  not  only  some  of  themselves,  but  also 
some  writers  of  their  times,  disposed  to  flatter  their  views,  have 
contended  that  they  inherited  the  one  right,  no  less  than  the  other, 
in  virtue  of  their  succeeding  to  the  special  powers  which  Christ 
conferred  on  St.  Peter,  for  the  government  of  the  Christian  fold. 

Having  once  conceived  this  notion,  we  know  that  in  some  cases 
it  was  carried  to  an  extravagant  length.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
population  of  Europe,  rude  as  was  their  condition,  professed  them¬ 
selves  believers  and  members  of  the  Church.  Tlie  same  persons 
were,  also,  members  of  the  State ;  and  the  laws  for  their  govern¬ 
ment  emanating  from  this  double  source,  instead  of  acting  on  them 
separately,  were  blended,  in  many  instances,  by  the  authority  of 
the  State  alone,  into  a  complex  code  of  legislation,  embracing  both 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  law.  Thus  it  was  assumed,  that,  as  all  were 
of  the  same  faith,  the  two  powers — though  having  their  separate 
existence,  in  themselves — might  be  so  united  as  to  produce  harmony 
of  results,  and  contribute  to  the  general  good.  Instead  of  this, 
however,  the  mixture  seems  to  have  led  to  perpetual  strifes  and 
misunderstandings.  It  would  not  be  possible  to  enter  upon  the 
merits  of  a  single  controversy  between  the  pope  and  any  of  the 
sovereigns  with  wdiom  he  so  frequently  disputed.  It  is  true,  that 
at  times,  and  in  the  case  of  individual  popes,  the  claim  to  exercise 
authority  over  what  would  now  be  called  the  civil  affairs  of  this 
world,  reached  to  an  extent  at  which  we,  judging  it  by  the  standard 


430 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  the  present  day,  look  back  with  astonishment  and  wonder  ;  until 
at  lengtli  such  claims  naturally  died  away,  when  the  causes,  and  the 
system  of  those  ages  which  had  called  them  into  existence,  ceased 
to  operate  and  to  exist.  We  look  upon  them  as  a  strange  anomaly 
in  the  history  of  Europe ;  but  we  must  not  forget,  that  they  oc¬ 
curred  at  a  time  when  its  whole  civil  and  social  condition  was  made 
up  of  systematized  anomalies.  It  is  quite  possible,  however,  tliat 
were  we  able  to  appreciate  the  vnecessities  and  circumstances  in 
which  those  claims  originated,  we  should  think  them  perfectly 
natural,  and  come  to  regard  them  as  having  been  instrumental, 
not  only  in  the  establishment  of  civil  order,  but,  also,  in  the  first 
planting,  the  first  remote  preparation  of  the  very  liberties  and  secu¬ 
rity  which  Christian  nations  now  enjoy. 

Whenever  a  striking  and  extraordinary  develoi^ment  of  any  single 
moral  power  has  occurred  in  the  history  of  mankind,  we  may  be 
assured  that  it  is  the  result  of  some  latent  principle,  deeply,  though 
perhaps,  silently  working  in  the  mass  of  the  people,  which  thn^i 
finds  a  vent  and  a  medium  of  expression.  So  in  regard  to  the  civil 
authority  exercised  by  the  Pope,  We  must  seek  an  explanation 
for  it  far  more  adequate  than  the  superficial  idea  of  priestly  ambi¬ 
tion,  working  on  the  ignorance  of  the  popular  mind.  Besides  the 
direct  spiritual  mission  of  the  Church,  the  popes,  as  her  visible 
head  on  earth,  have  ever  felt  a  deep  aiid  profound  interest  in  the 
hapjiiness  and  moral  improvement  of  the  Christian  people.  It  was 
in  the  dii’ection  to  promote  that  happiness,  that  order  should  be 
made  to  rise  out  of  chaos,  after  the  breaking  up  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  It  was  in  the  same  direction,  that  simultaneously  with  tlie 
establishment  of  order,  the  elements  of  civilized  liberty  should  be 
gradually  evolved  out  of  the  rude  form  of  savage  freedom,  which 
the  invaders  had  brought  from  the  forests  of  the  North,  How 
could  these  objects  be  accomplished,  except  by  bringing  them  under 
submission  to  moral  authority  ?  And  there  wvas  no  authority  under 
heaven,  before  which  those  iron-hearted  warriors  would  have  sub¬ 
mitted,  except  that  of  religion — in  other  words,  of  the  Church, 
The  pillage,  and  strife,  and  turbulence  of  the  times,  pointed  out  the 
exercise  of  this  spiritual  power  as  the  only  principle  of  common 
safety.  It  became  recognized,  acknowledged — even  popular,  as  a 
mighty  source  of  God’s  providence,  for  the  conservation  of  human 
rights,  during  a  jieriod  that  thre.atened  to  overthrow  them  all. 
The  law  of  the  State,  so-called  was,  with  the  exception  of  a  lew 
barbarous  enactments,  the  law  of  the  strong  against  the  weak. 
But  the  law  of  the  Church,  framed  in  its  code  of  discipline,  to 
meet  the  exigencies  of  the  times,  in  regard  to  the  morals,  both  of 
the  clergy  and  of  the  laity,  was  a  code  to  which  all  professed  sub¬ 
mission,  That  law  was  no  respecter  of  persons  ;  it  was  the  same 
for  the  noble,  the  prince,  the  peasant,  and  the  serf. 

You  will  see  accordingly,  in  the  history  of  those  times,  bishops 
and  popes  employing  the  spiritual  weapon  of  excommunication  and 
other  censures,  with  a  directness  and  independence  which,  viewed 


LECTURE  02^  THE  ISIIDDLE  AGES. 


481 


m  the  light  of  oiir  age,  appear  infinitely  extravagant  and  almost 
in(!oncei.vable.  Now,  the  sentence  denounced  against  the  people, 
or  some  of  their  firctious  leaders,  for  their  insubordination  to  their 
rulers  ;  and  now  it  is  fulminated  with  the  same  stern  impartiality 
against  their  sovereigns  themselves.  The  merits  of  the  quarrels 
between  individual  popes  and  princes,  are  variously  judged  of  in 
history  ;  but  there  is  one  conclusion,  which  forces  itself  on  the 
mind  of  whoever  reads  history  dispassionately,  and  in  the  light  of 
philoso})hy  ;  Avhich  is,  that  apart  from  the  mere  personal  passions 
and  feelings  of  these  individual  pojDes  and  princes  themselves,  the 
principle  of  ecclesiastical  censures,  as  applied  to  the  temporal  con¬ 
cerns  of  the  people,  was  to  reduce  them  into  civil  subordination  ; 
while  its  principle  again,  when  directed  against  their  sovereigns, 
was  that,  in  enforcing  subordination,  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the 
people  should  be  preserved  and  protected,  according  to  the  public 
laws  and  the  oaths  of  ofiice  by  which  those  sovereigns  had  bound 
themselves  to  rule.  If,  again,  you  find  the  popes  encouraging,  and 
sometimes  ahnost  heading  those  military  enterprises  or  crusades 
for  the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land,  falling  in  with  the  paroxysms 
of  enthusiasm  which  they  themselves  had  excited,  it  was  because 
neither  subordination  nor  liberty  could  be  of  any  avail,  unless  the 
Christian  nations  of  western  Europe  combined  for  their  common 
defence.  Iteligion  was  the  only  social  bond  of  communion,  on 
which  those  nations  could  be  rallied ;  and  had  not  the  Church  inter¬ 
fered  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  them,  we  do  not  see  by  what 
human  means  the  followers  of  the  Arabian  prophet  would  have 
been  prevented  from  overthrowing  the  nations  of  Christendom,  and 
leaving  western  Eui-ope  to  be  found,  at  the  present  day,  in  the 
same  condition  as  the  Turkish  Empire. 

The  philosophical  analysis  of  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  power, 
putting  aside  mere  party  views,  will  show  that,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  intention  of  the  popes,  their  inflaence,  in  point  of  histori¬ 
cal  fiict,  was  directed  to  forming  and  maturing  the  three  great 
principles  on  which  civilized  society  can  alone  rest  securely  ;  namely, 
order,  liberty,  and  public  safety.  It  is  acknowledged,  on  all  hands, 
that  they  were  men  in  advance  of  the  civilization  of  their  age  ;  and 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  the  pope — without  any  physical 
force  at  his  command  ;  oftentimes  unable  to  govern  his  own  petty 
territory  ;  frequently  obliged,  when  he  had  just  launched  his  sent¬ 
ence  against  some  tyrant,  to  fly  and  hide  himself — should  have  been 
able  to  find  so  general  an  acquiescence  in  that  sentence,  if  he  had 
not  been,  in  those  ages,  the  personification  of  some  great  popular 
principle,  or  social  want,  working  in  the  hearts  of  the  peo]fle  them¬ 
selves  ;  but  which,  in  such  times,  could  not  otherwise  find  expres¬ 
sion  or  produce  eftect.  Neither  should  this  appear  wonderful. 
The  Church  herself,  in  all  her  own  forms  of  government,  was,  as 
she  still  is,  a  model  of  modified  and  admirably  well-regulated  demo¬ 
cratic  jurisprudence.  In  the  Church,  tb.e  principle  of  suffrage  and 
election  has  ever  prevailed.  It  was  by  election  or  merit,  that  the 


432 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


clergy  themselves  were  taken  from  the  ranks  of  the  people ;  and 
even  the  humblest  member  of  the  clerical  body,  according  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Church  might,  by  that  principle  of  election,  be 
elei^ated  from  one  grade  to  another,  even  to  the  highest  dignity. 
Many  of  the  popes,  even  to  the  present  day,  were  taken  from  the 
ranks  of  the  people.  Now,  this  model  of  the  universal  Church 
]iervaded  civil  society  at  all  times.  It  was  constantly  in  action, 
before  the  eyes  of  the  people,  and  could  not  fail  to  give  them  those 
primary  notions  of  order  and  of  liberty,  by  which  their  respect  for 
mere  physical  strength  and  brute  courage  gradually  gave  way  to 
their  revei-ence  for  moral  force  and  intellectual  merit.  The  councils, 
also,  furnished  them  with  a  model  of  deliberative  and  rej'yresentative 
assemblies.  For,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  principle  of  elec¬ 
tion  and  representation  is  unknown  beyond  the  limits  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  ;  and,  even  within  these  limits,  is  not  derived  from  any  idea 
of  a  “  social  contract,”  but  from  the  living,  practical,  daily  work¬ 
ing,  and  example,  of  the  social  principles  of  the  ancient  Church. 

It  may  be  asked,  however,  what  right  popes  could  have  had  to 
meddle  with  sovereigns  at  all  ?  In  addition  to  what  has  already 
been  said  ;  viz. :  that  this  meddling  was  in  accordance  Avith  the 
usages  of  the  times — it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  Avas  then,  the  only 
means  by  Avhich  limits  could  be  put  to  regal  and  imperial  despotism. 
A  Christian  sovereign  Avas,  by  this  means  denied,  and  abriged  of, 
the  right  of  being  despotic.  He  was  SAVorn  to  fultill  the  obligations 
prescribed  at  his  coronation  :  and  he  was  sworn  under  the  implied 
and  admitted  jienalty  of  being  called  to  an  account  by  the  Church, 
if  he  aftei’Avards  A'iolated  his  oath  and  became  publicly  perjured. 
Rut  not  for  this  cause,  exclusively  ;  if  he  opposed  his  subjects, 
contrary  to  the  hiAvs  ;  if  he  outraged  some  great  principle  of  Chris¬ 
tian  morals  ;  if  he  Avould  have  two  Avives,  at  the  same  tim.e  ;  or  in 
any  other  manner,  glaringly  violated  his  duty  as  a  Christian,  or  as 
a  ruler  ; — the  modern  idea,  that  a  sovereign  has  a  right  to  goA^ern 
as  he  thinks  proper,  would  have  been  for  him  of  no  avail.  The 
eyes  of  his  OAvn  subjects,  and  of  Christendom,  in  such  a  case,  Avould 
l)e  turned  upon  the  common  father  of  the  Church — remonstrance 
from  the  Pope  Avould  follow — after  remonstrance  threats  ;  and  if 
these  proved  fruitless,  then  came  the  celebrated  “  thunders  of  the 
Vatican  the  mere  imaginary  echoes  of  Avhich,  conjures  up  hob¬ 
goblins  in  the  minds  of  groAvn  up  children,  cIoavu  to  the  present 
(lay. 

Thus  the  Church,  or  rather  the  people,  vindicating  their  rights 
through  the  head  of  the  Church,  tolerated  no  despot,  no  tyrant,  on 
the  thrones  of  Europe.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  assert  that  this  acci¬ 
dental  jiOAver  Avas  not  sometimes  exercised  in  an  arbitrary  and 
improper  manner,  in  mere  passionate  and  personal  quarrels,  in 
Avhich,  beyond  the  personal  motiA^e,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  prin¬ 
ciple  inv lived.  But,  at  the  same  time,  I  have  myself  no  hesitation 
in  declaring  the  conviction,  that  it  is  to  this  power,  rightly  or 
wrongly  exercised,  that  we  ai'e  indebted  tor  the  advantage  of  re- 


LECTURE  ON  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 


433 


sponsible  governments  in  modern  times.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
king  or  emperor,  under  this  system,  came  to  be  regarded  as  only 
the  supreme  officer  of  the  whole  people  ;  and  that,  while  this  sys¬ 
tem  pre\-ailed,  even  in  its  mitigated  form,  which  has  also  long  since 
})assed  away,  the  idea  of  an  absolute  government  in  Christendom 
Avas  utterly  unknown.  Under  it  the  representation  of  the  public 
wants  and  public  will  grew  up,  in  the  form  of  Diets,  General  As¬ 
semblies,  Cortes,  and  Parliaments  ;  and  the  object  of  these  assem¬ 
blies  was  to  circumscribe  and  regulate  the  power  of  the  sovereign, 
no  less  than  to  define  or  enlarge  the  rights  of  the  subject.  The 
Cortes  of  Spain,  while  this  jurisprudence  was  at  least  theoretically 
in  existence,  still  were  accustomed  to  tell  their  sovereign,  at  the 
opening  of  the  assembly,  “  that  each  of  them  was  equal  to  himself, 
and  all  united  were  more  than  his  equal.”  We  know  what  rights 
were  exercised,  and  what  limits  were  prescribed,  for  the  royal 
authority  in  the  Diets  of  Germany,  and  in  the  parliaments  of 
France  and  England. 

In  those  days,  the  “  divine  right  of  monarchy  ”  never  entered 
into  the  heads  of  men.  Even  in  the  eighth  century.  Pope  Zachary, 
writing  to  the  people  of  France,  says:  “The  prince  is  responsible 
to  the  people,  whose  favor  he  enjoys.  Whatever  he  has — power, 

honor,  glory,  dignity — he  has  received  from  the  people . 

The  people  make  the  king,  they  can  also  unmake  him.”  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas,  one  of  the  greatest  divines  of  the  Church,  in  any  age, 
lays  down  in  his  pi-inciples  of  theology,  that  Civil  Governments  are 
not  by  “  divine  right,”  but  by  “  human  right ;”  and  that,  “  when 
anything  is  to  be  enacted  for  the  common  good,  it  ought  to  be  done 
either  by  the  ivhole  multitude  of  the  people,  or  by  their  representa¬ 
tive.”  Even  Bellarmine  says,  “  it  is  false,  that  political  princes  have 
their  power  from  God  only  ;  for  they  have  it  from  God,  only  so  far 
as  he  has  planted  a  natural  Instinct,  in  the  minds  of  men,  that  they 
should  wish  to  be  governed  by  some  one.  But  whether  they  should 
be  governed  by  kings,  or  by  consuls — by  one,  or  by  many — by  a 
perpetual,  or  temporary  magistrate,  depends  upon  their  own  wishes.” 
In  fact,  so  far  as  the  Church  had  power  to  influence  the  thoughts 
and  ideas  of  men,  in  regard  to  the  responsibility  attached  to  the 
exercise  of  power,  this  was  the  doctrine  perpetually  inculcated,  and 
the  working  out  of  this  principle,  in  the  middle  ages,  was  only 
different  in  ibrm,  but  essentially  the  same  in  essence  as  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  day.  Then,  it  wms  accomplished  through  the  medium  of  an 
excommunication  ;  now,  through  that  of  revolution. 

This  doctrine  was  not  a  theory  only,  but  reduced  to  practice. 
Bracton,  one  of  the  judges  of  Henry  III.  of  England,  writes,  that 
“  the  monarch  is  called  King  (Rex)  from  governing  well,  and  not 
from  reigning  ;  because  he  is  king  while  he  reigns  well,  but  a  tyrant 
when  he  violently  oppresses  the  people  intrusted  to  him.”  And  he 
adds,  that:  “  he  is  not  a  king  who  rules  by  his  own  wfill,  and  not  by 
the  law.”  In  the  Council  of  Lyons,  held  in  the  reign  of  the  same 
Henry,  the  English  proxies,  both  of  the  Church  and  of  the  realm,  pro- 
28 


434 


AltCIIBISHOP  HUGHES. 


tested  against  King  Jolin’s  grant  of  tribute  to  the  Pope,  as  a  nullity, 
and  called  on,  the  council  for  redress — precisely  because  the  King 
had  made  the  grant  without  the  consent  of  the  nation.  The 
Magna  Charta  itself — the  old  well-spring  of  all  our  liberties — was 
but  the  written  text  of  the  liberties  which  had  been  preserved,  in 
the  customs  and  traditions  of  the  people,  from  the  time  of  Edward 
the  Confessor  ;  but  which,  now,  are  reduced  to  writing,  “  signed, 
sealed,  and  delivered,  by  the  parties  thereto.”  Particulars  in  de¬ 
tail,  however,  must  be  omitted,  in  a  subject  like  the  present.  It  is 
sufficient  to  observe,  that  the  old  common  law  of  England  contained 
all  the  elements  of  perfect  civil  freedom  ;  that  a  custom,  “  time  out 
of  mind,”  “  whereof,”  in  the  old  phrase,  “  the  memory  of  man 
goetli  not  back  to  the  same,”  was  as  good  a  title  for  jiopular  rights 
and  privileges,  as  any  statute  of 'both  houses  of  parliament.  And 
Avhence  did  these  customs,  usages,  and  common  law,  derive  their 
origin  ?  Unquestionably,  from  the  principles  of  canon  law,  en¬ 
grafted  on  the  nation  and  ingrained  into  the  people,  through  the 
medium  of  the  cleruY  and  the  Church. 

Hence,  the  obscure  origin  of  those  rights  which  we  prize  most, 
in  the  improved  civilization  of  the  present  day — the  just  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  courts  of  justice — the  character  and  condition  of  wit¬ 
nesses — the  equality  of  right  between  the  humblest  subject  and  the 
sovereign  himself^ — the  rights  of  the  accused — the  forms  and  order 
of  deliberative  assemblies,  and  the  universal  rights  of  representation 
in  affiiirs,  such  as  taxes,  connected  with  burdening  the  people. 
Time,  and  the  improvements  of  the  public  mind,  have  contributed, 
no  doubt,  to  perfect  all  these  great  instruments  and  formularies  of 
public  and  social  right.  But  if  the  course  of  human  events,  through 
the  lapse  of  the  middle  ages,  had  not  compelled  the  Church  to 
interfere  in  the  temporal  concerns  of  States  and  sovereigns,  it  is 
altogether  improbable  that  we  should  ever  be  blessed  with  their 
enjoyment.  They  do  not  exist  in  Russia,  nor  in  Turkey ;  and 
although  the  Chinese  Empire  has  enjoyed  a  certain  dwarfish  civili¬ 
zation  for  more  than  two  thousand  years,  there  has  been  no  increase 
— no  development  in  her  social  institutions  ;  and  she  preserves  to 
this  day,  among  other  evidences,  that  universal  type  of  unchristian 
and  barbarous  nations,  namely,  hostility  to  foreigners.  [The  ap¬ 
plause  here  was  very  great.] 

It  would  be,  however,  a  mistake  to  suppose,  that  the  Pope  in 
launching  excommunications  for  civil  crimes,  had  no  rule  of  guid¬ 
ance  ;  or,  that  the  people  paid  any  attention  to  them  when  they 
were  palpably  against  their  rights.  The  principle  of  excommunica¬ 
tion  was  recognized;  but  the  justice  of  its  application,  in  such 
cases,  was  a  matter  of  individual  judgment,  according  to  the  merits 
of  each  particular  case.  Thus,  there  are  instances,  and  particularly 
in  reference  to  the  dispute  between  King  John  and  his  barons,  in 
which  the  people,  and  the  bishops,  too,  disregarded  the  Pope’s 
judgment,  and  even  his  censures,  with  as  much  true  independence, 
as  they  ivould  at  the  present  day  ;  not  because  they  rebelled  against 


LECTUKE  OJf  THE  JIIDDLE  AGES. 


435 


his  authority,  hut  because  that  authority  had  been  exercised  through 
the  false  representations  of  the  monarch. 

Strange  and  confused  as  this  state  of  society  seems  to  have  been 
— this  working  and  fermentation  of  all  the  elements  of  civil  and 
of  social  order — yet  it  was  in  such  a  state  of  things  that  the  rights 
of  humanity,  the  limits  and  the  duty  of  government,  and  the  laws 
of  nations,  were  brought  out  and  defined.  Toward  the  latter  end 
of  the  peiiod,  which  m.ay  be  still  included  in  the  Middle  Ages,  arts 
and  sciences  and  general  literature  were  revived.  The  discoveries 
which  were  made  became,  or  ought  to  have  become,  new  instru¬ 
ments  of  greater  development — particularly  the  compass,  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  gunpowder,  and  the  press.  But  it  is  quite  certain  that 
liberty,  and  the  protection  of  laws,  and  the  cultivation  of  science, 
have  not  made,  within  the  last  three  hundred  years,  half  the  progress 
they  had  made  during  the  three  hundred  years  previous. 

Among  the  evils  resulting  from  the  system  of  mixing  Church 
and  State,  may  be  enumerated  that  persecution  which  the  State,  or 
the  Church,  or  both  together,  exercised  in  case  of  departure  from 
the  established  faith.  It  certainly  never  was  a  principle  of  the 
Church,  to  coerce  men’s  religious’  convictions.  One  thousand  testi¬ 
monies  in  every  age  will  show  her  teaching  to  have  been,  that  man’s 
conviction  of  Christian  truth,  in  order  to  be  acceptable  to  God, 
must  be  sincere  and  voluntary ;  and  yet,  the  history  of  these  ages 
shows  the  extent  to  which,  authorized  by  law’s  growing  out  of  the 
union  referred  to,  governments  punished  religious  errors  with  tem¬ 
poral  penalties.  But  it  so  happened,  in  the  actual  condition  of 
society,  every  error,  or  heterodox  opinion  in  religion,  bec.ame  a 
crime  against  the  State  ;  and  it  is  equally  true,  that,  for  the  most 
part,  the  advocates  of  new  doctrines,  in  those  ages,  trusted  not  a 
little  to  their  swords  for  the  propagation  or  maintenance  of  their 
faith.  Thus,  the  Donatists,  in  the  fourth  century,  are  assailed  by 
the  State  ;  but  not  till  after  they  had  thrown  the  provinces  of 
Africa  into  confusion  by  their  violence.  In  the  same  century,  some 
of  the  Priscillianists,  in  Spain,  w-ere  put  to  death.  The  most  cele¬ 
brated  bishops  of  the  Church,  however,  in  that  age — such  as  St 
Martin  and  St.  Ambrose — pronounced  their  anatliemas  against  the 
authors  of  those  executions.  In  fact,  they  were  directed  by  the 
avarice  of  the  tyrant  Maximus,  in  order  to  possess  himself  of  their 
property. 

In  the  fifth  century,  Pelagianism,  another  heterodox  system  of 
religion,  passed,  wdthout  however  exciting  bloodshed  or  civil  dis- 
cof&.  The  Iconoclasts,  of  the  eighth  century,  instead  of  being 
persecuted,  became  themselves  the  persecutors.  The  Albigenses, 
in  the  twelfth  century,  appear  to  have  been  the  objects  of  the  most 
severe  laws  and  measures  recorded  in  the  annals  of  those  ages. 
Cotemporary  writers  describe  them  as  persons  Avho  could  not  be 
tolerated,  even  at  the  present  day,  by  any  civilized  gov’ernment  in 
the  Avorld.  They  were  entirely  distinct  in  their  doctrines,  and  in 
their  history,  from  the  Waldenses — who  appear  to  have  been  of  a 


I 


436 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


simpl3,  patient,  and  tranquil  character.  All  this,  however,  did  not 
save  them  from  the  intolerant  spirit  of  the  age.  The  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries  are  more  distinguished  for  the  wars  which  were 
carried  on,  under  j^retence  of  religion,  hut  which,  it  may  be  safely 
suspected,  had  their  origin  more  in  the  prospect  of  political  advan¬ 
tages  on  either  side,  than  in  the  love  of  truth,  or  the  pure  zeal  for 
its  triumph.  The  struggle  appears  to  have  been,  between  Catholics 
and  Protestants,  who  should  persecute  the  most — for,  as  I  remarked 
before,  the  mixture  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power  which,  in  the 
early  ages,  was,  as  I  conceive,  the  result  of  circumstances  or  neces¬ 
sity,  has  been  kept  up  in  all  the  modern  governments  of  Europe, 
of  every  religious  name,  down  to  the  present  day. 

If  the  Catholics  have  sinned,  on  this  subject,  as  I  .am  ready  to 
concede,  it  cannot  be  denied  on  the  other  hand,  th.at,  in  their 
reg.ard,  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  have  been  visited  on  the  chil¬ 
dren,  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation.  There  is  certainly  no 
denomination  of  Christians,  that  has  so  little  reason  to  be  in  love 
with  Church-and-State-Unions,  as  the  Catholics.  In  most  Catholic 
countries  themselves,  that  union  holds  their  religion  in  a  species  of 
degrading  bondage.  .  In  Protestant  governments,  they  are  grateful 
for  the  privilege  of  worshipjiing  God  according  to  the  faith  of  their 
fathers  ;  but  the  good  things  of  the  State  are  not  for  them.  But 
other  denominations  have  been,  equally,  made  to  feel  the  oppressions 
of  this  system.  And  it  may  have  been  a  special  providence  of 
God,  that  this  great  unpeopled  hemisphere  should  have  been  dis¬ 
covered,  precisely  at  a  period,  when  it  could  serve  as  a  refuge  and 
an  asylum  for  the  persecuted  of  every  name,  and  of  every  creed. 
It  was  this  system  of  Church-and-State-Union,  which  caused  the 
Puritan  pilgrims  to  seek  a  handing  place  on  the  rock  of  Plymouth,  in 
Massachusetts.  It  was  this,  which  caused  the  tranquil  w.aters  of 
St.  Mary’s  river,  in  Maryland,  to  be  disturbed  by  the  bark  of  the 
Catholic  pilgrims  ;  and  from  that  period  to  the  present,  whenever 
civil  or  religious  liberty  have  been  rudely  invaded  throughout  the 
civilized  world,  the  eyes  of  the  sufterer  have  wistfully  turned 
toward  the  home  of  conscience  and  freedom  in  the  west. 

It  will  be  recorded  hereafter  as  a  glorious  circumstance,  in  the 
annals  of  this  country,  that  the  solitary  pilgrim,  on  .arriving  at  these 
shores,  no  matter  from  what  nation,  has  been  met  by  the  hum.ane 
and  liberal  genius  of  the  Land,  which  inspired  even  his  own  country¬ 
men  to  form  societies  for  the  purpose  of  his  relief ;  and  that  these 
societies  are  sustained  by  the  generous  spirit  and  approbation  of  the 
whole  country.  It  is  now  more  than  seven  hundred  years  since 
Pope  Adrian  lY.  made  a  present  of  Ireland  to  King  Henry  II.  It 
IS  true,  that  the  authenticity  of  the  document  has  been  been  denied  ; 
but  t.aking  it  for  granted,  it  could  never  have  entered  into  the  mind 
of  his  holiness,  that  he  was  remotely  preparing  the  necessity  for  the 
humane  and  ch.aritable  work,  in  which  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Irish 
Emigrant  Society,  are  engaged.  It  was  not,  however,  the  docu¬ 
ment,  real  or  pretended,  of  the  Pope,  which  transferred  Ireland’s 


STATE  OF  THE  DIOCESE. 


437 


sovereignty  to  a  foreign  government.  Even  in  that  age,  the  Irish 
would  have  looked  on  such  a  document  as  so  much  blank  parch¬ 
ment.  But  their  own  internal  divisions  made  them  an  easy  prey 
for  the  sword  of  the  invader.  During  these  seven  centuries,  they 
have  been  cruslied  and  trampled  to  the  earth.  While  both  coun¬ 
tries  were  Catholics  they  were  denied  the  benefit  of  English  laws. 
When  a  new  religion  was  adopted  in  England,  and  when  the 
monarch  of  that  country — as  those  of  most  other  countries,  that 
embraced  the  change — made  himself  the  single  and  only  source, 
both  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power,  Ireland  felt  the  benefit  of 
English  laws  only  in  the  bitterness  of  their  proscription.  She, 
however,  for  the  most  part,  adhered  to  her  first  convictions  ;  re¬ 
mained  constant  and  faithful  to  her  first  love.  Penalties  have  been 
indicted  ;  but  they  have  produced  no  change.  If  penalties  were 
still  threatened,  we  should  have  no  dread  ;  but  there  is  something 
else,  which  is  now  spoken  of,  and  which  comes  within  the  legitimate 
range  of  my  subject.  The  State,  or  its  organs,  are  throwing  out 
hints,  as  if  the  intention  were  now  to  eftect  an  indirect  union  with 
the  Irish  Catholic,  no  less  than  the  Irish  Protestant  Church.  This, 
should  it  ever  be  attemjited,  will  be  presented  as  a  measure  of 
kindness.  And  we  know,  that  in  the  treatment  of  the  Irish  Catho¬ 
lic  people,  b}^  the  British  Government,  kindness  is  the  only  tempta¬ 
tion  that  ne\'er  was  tried.  That  it  will  be  as  unavailing  as  the  rest, 
I  have  no  doubt. 

The  people  and  their  clergy — and  above  all,  their  faithful  and 
vigilant  hierarchy — will  never,  at  this  late  day,  permit  the  ministry 
of  their  religion  to  be  polluted,  or  even  brought  into  suspicion,  by 
the  touch  of  government  gold.  I  have  great  confidence  in  all  this. 
But  I  have  greater  still,  in  the  mercies  of  God  toward  a  long-suffer¬ 
ing  people.  Still,  if  in  the  inscrutable  counsels  of  Providence, 
such  an  event  be  yet  in  reserve,  I  should  bow  down  in  submissive 
adoration  ;  but,  while  bowing,  I  should  pray  Him  as  a  humble 
member  of  the  Universal  Hierarchy,  that  the  day  which  should 
witness  such  humiliation,  might  be  postponed  until  after  I,  at  least, 
shall  have  been  gathered  to  the  sleep  of  my  fathers. 


STATE  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1841. 

“We  feel  much  pleasure, ’’says  the  Freeman's  Journal  of  October 
23d,  1841  “in  laying  before  our  readers  the  annexed  highly  interest¬ 
ing  communication  from  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes,  on  the 
state  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York 

Dear  Sir, — As  a  review  of  the  state  of  religion  in  this  Diocese 
cannot  but  be  interesting  to  a  large  number  of  your  readers,  I  pur¬ 
pose  to  furnish  you  with  a  brief  sketch  of  the  result  of  my  obser 
vations  during  the  recent  episcopal  visitation  of  the  churches.  It 
is  to  be  regretted,  that  the  limited  time  at  my  disposal  did  not 


438 


ARCHBIS'IOP  HUGHES. 


allow  me  to  stay  in  the  several  places  sufficiently  long  to  become 
acquainted  with  the  details  of  matters  pertaining  to  this  subject. 
But  one  thing  gave  me  great  consolation,  as  a  general  remark,  that 
the  congregations  manifest  a  decided  improvement  in  attention  to 
their  religious  duties,  and,  in  many  instances,  in  their  external 
appearance  and  the  prosperous  condition  of  their  churches.  Tliis, 
1  have  reason  to  believe,  is,  in  a  great  measure,  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  temperate  habits,  which  now  almost  universally  distinguish  the 
cliurclies  of  the  State  of  New  York.  The  Clergy,  with  commenda¬ 
ble  zeal,  have  urged  upon  their  flocks  the  advantages  to  be  derived, 
not  only  in  a  temporal,  but  more  particularly  in  a  spiritual  point  of 
view,  from  a  strict  observance  of  that  sobriety  which  is  enjoined 
by  the  precepts  of  religion,  but  unhappily  too  often  violated  in  the 
practices  of  men.  In  Albany,  Schenectady,  Utica,  Rochester,  and, 
Avith  only  one  or  two  exceptions,  in  all  the  other  congregations  of 
the  Diocese,  there  are  Temperance  Associations  established,  Avhich 
include  nearly  the  whole  of  the  Catholic  population.  Wherever 
this  change  has  taken  place,  the  Clergy  have  gAen  me  assurance  of 
the  happiest  results,  even  in  cases  in  Avhich  there  had  appeared  to 
be  no  ground  of  hope.  The  peace  of  families  has  been  restored 
and  remains  unbroken — prosperity  has  been  the  reward  of  industry 
— and  industry  itself  but  the  child  of  improved  habits — and,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  more  of  the  comforts  of  life  are  enjoyed — more 
order  prevails — and  means  which  had  been  before  wasted,  or  worse, 
are  now  applied  to  the  clothing  and  education  of  children,  whose 
neglected  state,  in  the  unhappy  course  of  former  times,  Avas  enough 
to  excite  pity  in  any  breast.  Thus  much  Avith  regard  to  temporal 
consequences.  But  the  Clergy  have  also  assured  me  of  the  increase 
in  the  numbers  of  those  avIio  frequent  the  Sacraments,  and  that 
instances  have  occurred  in  Avhich  persons,  Avho  for  years  had  been 
estranged  from  the  consolations  of  I’eligion,  in  consequence  of 
intemperate  habits,  have  returned,  and,  with  an  arvakened  sense  of 
duty,  have  become  edifying  members  of  the  flock,  and  patterns  in 
their  own  families.  Independent  of  these  testimonies,  my  own  eye 
A\'as  witness — in  the  general  appearance  of  the  congregations — the 
decorum  and  order,  and  external  aspect  of  the  people — to  the 
blessed  results  of  a  return  to  the  temperance  Avhich  religion  enjoins, 
and  which  no  Christian  ought  to  violate.  There  is  but  one  thing 
connected  Avith  this  reformation,  to  which  I  would  direct  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  Pastors  and  their  flocks — it  is  the  remark  that  Avherever 
Temperance  Societies  have  proceeded  on  the  ordinary  principles  of 
social  orgaiiization  they  have  not  produced  these  unmixed  sources 
of  consolation.  That  is,  Avhen  they  have  began  their  organization 
in  the  appointment  of  Presidents,  Vice-Presidents,  and  other  offi¬ 
cers,  and  conducted  their  meetings  as  is  usual  under  such  organiza¬ 
tion,  then,  although  temperance,  as  to  abstinence  from  liquor,  may 
have  })revailed,  yet  intempei’ance  in  language — bitterness  of  feeling, 
and  divisions,  have  but  too  frequently  accompanied  it.  I  Avould 
therofote  recommend  to  the  Clergy,  and  to  the  people  of  the  difler 


STATE  OF  TUE  DIOCESE. 


43'J 


eot  congregations,  that  wherever  temperance  Societies  are  to  be 
established,  the  form  should,  be  as  simple  as  possible.  That  which 
prevails  so  hap])ily  in  Ireland  under  the  auspices  and  untiring  zeal 
of  the  great  hhather  Mathew,  is  that  which  I  would  uniformly 
recommend — namely,  that  each  member  will  receive  simply  the 
pledge,  whether  in  one  form  or  another,  from  the  hands  of  his 
Pastor,  and  know  no  other  duty,  in  consequence,  than  to  keep  it 
with  fidelity.  There  is  no  necessity  for  external  banding  together 
for  this  purpose  ;  and,  wherever  it  has  been  attempted,  by  such 
banding  and  organization  the  evil  consequences  just  alluded  to 
have  uniformly  followed. 

In  a  brief  sketch,  such  as  that  which  I  now  propose  to  furnish,  it 
would  be  imjiossible  for  me  to  enter  upon  the  improved  condition, 
and  increasing  numbers  of  the  several  congregations.  I  have  ob¬ 
served  with  pleasure  the  fidelity  with  which  the  Clergy  in  general 
discharge  their  duties  to  the  utmost  of  their  ability.  Complaints 
have  been  rare — indeed,  with  one  single  exception,  no  such  thing 
has  occurred  during  the  whole  course  of  the  visitation,  and  in  that 
exception  I  Avas  happy  to  find  that  the  complaint  was  founded,  not 
in  any  neglect  of  duty,  or  other  ground  of  reproach  on  the  part  of 
the  Pastor,  but  rather  in  unreasonable  expectations  and  caprice  on 
the  part  of  those  who  had  felt  dissatisfaction  tOAvards  him.  During 
my  tour  I  visited  the  churches  of  Albany,  Troy,  Schenectady,  and 
the  other  principal  tOAvns,  excepting  those  in  the  Northern  District. 
In  Albany,  there  are  noAV  tAvo  large  and  commodious  churches,  and 
it  is  found  that  these  are  not  sutficient  to  contain  the  numbers  of 
the  faithful.  An  etfort  is  being  made  by  the  German  Catholics  of 
Albany,  who  number  from  one  hundred  to  one  hundred  and  sixty 
families,  to  erect  a  church  in  Avhich  they  also  may  enjoy  the  conso¬ 
lations  of  religion,  through  the  medium  of  their  oavti  language. 
At  present,  lioAvever,  I  have  no  priest  to  send.  But  I  am  in  the 
expectation  that  some  missionaries  from  their  native  land  may  come 
to  sympathize  in  their  condition  and  administer  to  them  those  sacred 
rights  Avhich  t,hey  Avere  accustomed  to  frequent  in  the  country  of 
their  birth.  But,  besides  the  church  for  their  accommodation, 
anotlier  Avould  be  necessary  for  the  members  Avho  speak  the  Eng¬ 
lish  language.  In  Troy  there  are  also  tAVO  churches ;  Avhilst  in 
W est  Troy  an  additional  church  is  much  Avanted.  In  the  village  of 
Lansingburgh,  a  church  is  also  wanted  for  the  number  of  Catholics 
residing  there;  and  in  the  neighboring  toAvn  of  Waterford,  Mr. 
Tracy  has  purchased  a  site,  which  he  generously  ofters  for  that  pur¬ 
pose  ;  and  the  venerable  Mr.  liaAvson,  an  aged  and  zealous  convert 
to  the  Catholic  faith,  has  promised  a  donation  of  five  hundred 
dollars  so  soon  as  the  undertaking  is  commenced.  Still,  at  present, 
partly  through  Avant  of  means,  and  partly  because  there  is  no  clergy¬ 
man  to  be  placed  at  their  head,  it  Avould  not  be  prudent  to  com¬ 
mence  its  erection.  We  may  hope,  hoAvever,  that  in  a  short  time  a 
clergyman  Avill  be  found  Avho  Avill  organize  this  congregation,  and 
one  or  two  others  that  might  be  attended  from  the  same  place. 


440 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


In  SchenectaJy — where  but  a  few  years  ago,  there  was  divine 
service  only  once  in  the  month,  by  a  priest  from  Albany — there  is 
uow^  a  neat  brick  church,  and  a  flourishing  congregation,  too  large 
to  be  accommodated  within  its  walls.  Nearly  every  member  of 
this  congregation  has  joined  the  Total  Abstinence  Association. 
Between  Schenectady  and  Utica,  there  is  but  one  clergyman,  whose 
principal  station  is  at  Little  Falls.  At  present,  the  laborers  on  the 
enlargement  of  the  canal  constitute  the  largest  portion  of  his  flock, 
and  amongst  them  also,  I  am  happy  to  state,  that  improved  habits, 
in  consequence  of  temperance,  prevail,  and  are  rapidly  gaining  for 
them  the  regard  and  kind  feeling  of  the  neighborhood  in  which 
they  are  employed.  In  Utica  there  are  two  churches — one  pur¬ 
chased  recently  by  the  German  Catholics  of  that  city  and  neighbor¬ 
hood,  for  whom  1  am,  as  yet,  unable  to  procure  a  clergyman.  This 
effort,  howmver,  made  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  a  pastor,  is  an  edify¬ 
ing  proof  that  these  emigrants  have  not  waxed  cold  in  their  attach¬ 
ment  to  the  faith.  The  other  portion  of  the  Catholics  is  under  the 
care  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Martin — whose  labors  for  their  welfare  are 
the  theme  of  every  tongue.  There  are  in  this  neighborhood  tw’’o 
churches,  with  their  congregations,  at  present  wnthout  a  pastor. 
These  vac.ancies  we  may  also  hope  soon  to  supply  from  those  who 
are  now  preparing  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Rose  Hill.  The 
next  station  w^estward  is  Rome.  So  few  were  the  Catholics  in  that 
village  but  a  short  period  since,  that  the  idea  of  erecting  a  church 
was  deemed  extravagant,  and  the  jiroposed  building  quite  unneces¬ 
sary.  Yet  it  wms  undertaken,  and  we  w'ere  delighted  to  see,  stand¬ 
ing  on  an  eminence  that  overlooks  the  railroad  and  the  town,  a 
beautiful  church  of  Grecian  architecture,  erected  on  ground  that 
was  gratuitously  given  by  Jasper  Lynch,  Esq.,  the  original  proprie¬ 
tor  of  the  village.  Not  only  did  this  gentleman  give  the  site,  but 
he  also  most  generously  contributed  towmrds  the  erection  of  the 
building,  the  beautiful  portico  of  which  was  entirely  at  his  expense. 
Here  also,  the  congregation  is  so  large  as  to  make  it  probable  that 
in  a  short  time  even  this  building  Avill  not  suflice  for  its  accommo¬ 
dation.  There  are,  besides,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Rome,  a  very 
large  number  of  German  Catholics  and  Canadian  emigrants,  who, 
on  account  of  the  difference  of  language,  cannot  be  so  well  provided 
for  in  their  s])iritual  relations  even  if  the  pastor  were  able  to  attend 
to  so  many. 

From  Rome — so  expeditious  is  the  travelling  by  the  great  West¬ 
ern  railroad — it  wms  the  business  of  but  a  few  hours  to  reach  the 
next  station,  that  of  Salina.  Here  the  congregation  is  less  fluctuat¬ 
ing,  as  the  numbers  and  the  increase,  though  j)erhaps  not  as  large 
as  in  other  places,  are  more  permanent  owing  to  the  steadiness  of 
employment  afforded  by  the  extensive  salt  w’orks.  Of  the  two 
villages  of  Syracuse  and  Salina,  it  was  long  doubtful  which  wms 
destined  to  become  the  more  important ;  but  for  some  years  past 
events  have  determined  in  favor  of  the  former.  A  very  large  num- 
boi  of  Catholics  have  settled  in  Syracuse,  and  they  are  now  engaged 


STATE  OF  THE  DIOCESE. 


441 


in  an  effort  to  erect  a  chnrcli  in  that  place.  In  tlie  mean  time  the^ 
form  part  of  the  congregation  of  Salina,  for  wliicli  the  church, 
originally  conceived  to  be  too  large,  has  been  found  entirely  inade¬ 
quate  to  afford  the  requisite  accommodation.  The  worthy  and 
zealous  clergyman  in  this  place  has  not  deemed  it  necessary  to 
establish  a  temj)erance  association,  inasmuch  as  without  it,  his  flock 
has  become  remarkable  for  sober  and  abstemious  habits.  From  Salina, 
the  next  station  was  Auburn,  where  I  had  not  time  to  make  such 
delay  as  I  could  have  wished.  The  congregation  here  is  very  small 
and  does  not  appear  to  increase.  It  is  visited  but  once  a  month  by 
the  pastor,  who  has  to  attend  to  two  other  congregations,  those  of 
Seneca  Falls  and  Geneva.  In  this  mission  the  only  increase  at 
present  apparent  is  in  the  congregation  at  Seneca  Falls.  This  is  to 
be  accounted  for  principally  by  the  encouragement  there  aftbrded 
for  manual  employment,  and  the  inducements  which  extensive 
im])rovements  going  on  in  that  neighborhood,  hold  out  to  mechanics 
or  laboi-ers.  The  church  at  Geneva  has,  however,  had  but  little 
pi'osperity.  It  has  now  been  erected  ten  years,  yet  the  number  of 
Catholics  connected  with  it  now  are  not  greater  than  they  were  at 
the  time  of  its  erection.  The  state  of  the  pecuniary  affairs  of  this 
chui’ch  may  be  quoted  as  an  instance  of  that  mismanagement  which 
is  but  too  general,  unfortunately,  for  the  interests  of  our  religion 
and  our  people.  This  church  ivas  originally  constructed  at  a  cost 
of  about  two  thousand  dollars,  of  which  twelve  hundred  were 
raised  by  subscript  ion,  and  paid  at  the  time.  Since  then  we  are  not 
aware  of  any  improvements  requiring  further  expenditure  having 
been  made,  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  the  church  now  stands 
indebted  to  the  amount  of  nearly  three  thousand  dollars — a  sum 
more  than  double  its  actual  value !  The  management  of  the 
aftiiirs  of  this  church  has  been  in  the  hands  of  persons  appointed  in 
the  ordinary  w.ay  as  trustees,  whose  intentions  have  doubtless  been 
good,  but  who  have,  nevertheless,  been  so  unhappy  in  accomplishing 
their  designs,  as  to  present  the  unfortunate  result  just  stated.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  some  measures  are  absolutely  essential  to  cor¬ 
rect  the  evils  of  the  present  system  of  managing  church  property. 
The  idea  has  been  extensively  cherished  that  the  clergy  of  the 
Catholic  Church  should  not  interfere  in  the  management  of  its  tem¬ 
poral  concerns.  For  my  own  part,  I  believe  the  idea  has  been  the 
cause  of  much  detriment  to  religion,  both  .as  regards  its  spiritual 
progress  and  the  temporal  means  that  are  dedicated  to  its  support ; 
for,  the  consequence  has  been  that  the  clergy  have  naturally  declined 
all  interference.  They  have  not  chosen  to  incur  fatigue,  and  labor 
and  annoyance,  which  would  earn  for  them,  not  the  gratitude  of  those 
ap])arently  most  interested,  but  which  would  bring  down  their  cen- 
sui-e.  And  yet  it  has  been  found  that  these  same  clergymen  who 
are  not  deemed  competent  to  have  even  a  voice  in  the  distribution  or 
economy  of  the  church  funds,  have  always  been  looked  to  as  the  per 
sons  whose  duty  it  was  to  provide  these  funds.  But  on  themselves, 
the  eftect  has  been  that  they  have  become  less  interested  in  proper- 


I 


442  ARCHBISHOP  hughes. 

tion  as  they  were  deprived  of  their  rights  of  interference  and  power 
of  doing  good.  The  trustees  of  this  church  were  enabled  to  sliow 
to  tlieir  own  satisfaction  liow  the  strange  accumulation  of  debt  has 
been  effected,  but  I  confess  tliat  I  could  not  comprehend  the  ex¬ 
planation.  But  neither  do  I  for  one  moment  entertain  any  other 
opinion  than  that  these  persons  had  undertaken  a  task  for  which 
they  have  been  by  no  means  qualihed,  and  without  intending  to 
mismanage  the  affairs  of  the  church,  that  those  affairs  have  been 
most  unaccountably  mismanaged.  The  very  lot,  or  rather  one  of 
the  two  lots  on  which  the  church  stands,  and  which  had  been  paid 
for  years  ago,  was  allowed  to  remain  so  implicated  in  the  general 
property  of  the  individual  of  whom  the  original  purchase  was  made, 
that  it  became  subject  to  sale  by  a  mortgage  held  by  him.  This 
lot  was  actually  permitted  to  be  sold,  and  now  the  additional  sum 
of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  will  be  required  for  its  release. 
This  is,  perhaps,  a  strong  case  in  illustration  of  the  evils  of  a  system 
which  requires  correction.  But  other  cases,  more  or  less  to  be 
regretted,  are  to  be  found  in  almost  eveiy  part  of  the  diocese. 
Even  in  one  case  so  far  had  these  men  carried  their  pretentions  that 
they  determined  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  the  clergyman,  that  the 
altar  should  stand  in  the  west  instead  of  the  east  end  of  the  building 
because  it  pleased  them  to  think  it  would  look  better  there  !  The 
result  of  my  observations  in  reference  to  this  subject  it  is  my  inten¬ 
tion  to  make  known  as  soon  as  I  can  find  leisure  to  arrange  the 
notes  I  have  already  prepared.  It  is  most  important  for  the  Catho¬ 
lics  that  a  more  concise,  and  responsible  mode  of  managing  the 
temporal  affairs  of  their  churches  than  that  which  has  hitherto  pre¬ 
vailed  should  be  introduced. 

The  short  period  of  time  that  I  "was  permitted  to  spend  at  Geneva 
was  necessarily  occupied  in  examining  into  this  melancholy  state  of 
the  tem23oral  affairs  of  that  church,  and  as  my  engagements  required 
my  presence  at  Rochester  on  the  following  Sunday,  it  was  not  in 
my  power  to  meet  the  assembled  congregation  of  Geneva.  There 
is,  perhaps,  no  city  or  town  in  the  Diocese  in  which  there  is  a  pros¬ 
pect  of  a  more  permanent  increase  in  the  members  of  the  Catholic 
Communion  than  in  Rochester.  There  are  at  present  two  churches, 
both  large  and  commodious.  For  those  who  speak  the  English  lan¬ 
guage  the  erection  of  an  additional  church  has  been  deemed  of  press¬ 
ing  necessity,  and  measures  have  been  taken  for  that  purpose; 
whilst  the  numbers  of  the  German  Catholics,  in  and  about  Roches¬ 
ter,  equally  require  that  new  provision  should  be  made  for  their 
accommodation.  Accordingly,  two  respectable  members  of  the  Ligo- 
rian  Society,  who  have  at  present  charge  of  the  congregation,  have 
purchased  ground,  and  are  making  arrangements  for  the  erection  of 
a  new  church  suited  to  the  wants  of  the  people.  It  may  be  re¬ 
marked  that  Rochester  was  one  of  the  first  cities  to  introduce  the 
principle  of  the  temperance  association.  Long  before  it  had  been 
spoken  of  in  any  other  Catholic  congregation  in  this  country,  and 
even  before  it  had  been  taken  up  by  Father  Mathew  in  Ireland,  ff 


VOYAGE  ACROSS  THE  ATLANTIC. 


443 


had  been  introduced  in  the  congregation  of  the  Kev.  Mr.  O’Reilly 
of  Rochester,  with  the  ha[)piest  eftects,  which  are  still  visible.  Be¬ 
sides  these  congregations  already  established,  the  large  and  increas¬ 
ing  numbers  of  Canadian  and  French  Catholics  in  Rochester  and  its 
neighborhood  encourage  them  to  solicit  the  presence  of  a  clergyman, 
who  could  speak  to  them  in  their  own  language.  It  is  not  in  my 
power  at  present  to  send  them  one;  nevertheless,  their  good  dis¬ 
positions,  and  zealous  efforts,  shall  not  be  forgotten,  and  as  soon  as 
the  opportunity  offers  of  engaging  for  them  a  clergyman  of  their 
own  nation,  it  shall  certainly  be  taken  advantage  of  for  that  purpose. 
Seven  miles  from  Rochester  is  the  township  of  Greece,  settled  to  a 
very  considerable  extent  by  Catholics.  They  have  not  had  at  all 
times  the  undivided  attention  of  any  clergyman,  although  one  of  the 
first  measures  adopted  by  them  after  the  settlement  in  the  place  was 
to  secure  the  erection  of  a  neat  and  appropriate  church,  in  which 
now  they  have  regular  service  every  Sunday.  The  members  of  this 
congregation  are  for  the  most  part  agriculturists,  some  of  them  own¬ 
ing  highly  improved  plantations,  and  all  the  others  possessing  some 
portion  at  least  of  the  soil  on  which  they  reside.  During  my  visit, 
and  at  their  pressing  solicitation  to  have  a  clergyman  permanently 
residing  amongst  them,  I  appointed  as  their  pastor  the  Rev.  Dennis 
Kelly. 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  hasty  remarks  that  my  time  did  not  allow 
me  to  visit  the  many  interesting  and  important  congregations  which 
are  in  the  neighborhood  of  all  these  jDrincipal  stations,  both  between 
Geneva  and  Rochester,  and  the  latter  place  and  Lockport.  N ot  only 
on  the  main  route,  but  also  back  from  it,  there  are  many  scattered 
members  of  our  Communion,  cut  off,  unhappily,  by  their  isolated  po¬ 
sition  from  enjoying  the  consolations  of  the  public  exercises  of  re¬ 
ligion. 

- ».  - 

EXTRACTS  FROM  BISHOP  HUGHES’  JOURNAL 
OF  A  VOYAGE  ACROSS  THE  ATLANTIC. 

Mr.  Weed,  in  one  of  his  letters  from  London  in  1843,  to  the 
Albany  Evening  Journal,  says  : 

I  stated  in  a  former  letter  that  I  should  have  occasion  to  speak 
of  Bishop  Hughes  again,  and  if  I  now  say  less  of  him  than  I  then 
intended,  it  is  because  a  longer  and  more  intimate  accpiaintance  with 
him,  has  imposed  restraints  that  may  not  be  disregarded.  Nor  will 
I,  with  the  Atlantic  betw'een  me  and  the  country,  the  friends,  and 
the  home  of  my  afiections,  willingly  say  aught  to  wound  those  who 
hold  my  views  upon  the  public  school  question  as  erroneous.  Waiv¬ 
ing  these  topics,  therefore,  I  shall  now  content  myself  with  saying 
that  Bishop  Hughes  is  destined  to  exert  a,  powerful  influence  over 
the  minds  of  men.  He  is  in  the  prime  of  life,  with  tastes  and  habits 
Rnd  aspirations  which  will  not  rest  while  there  are  treasures  of 


444 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


knowledge  unexplored  ;  and  next  to  the  sacred  office  to  wnich  he 
has  been  consecrated,  he  is  desirous  of  promoting  the  general  wel¬ 
fare  of  his  fellow  citizens.  He  believes  it  to  be  not  less  the  jirivilege 
than  the  duty,  of  classes  of  men,  to  dedicate  their  whole  time  and 
talents  to  the  enlightenment  of  the  mind,  and  the  alleviation  of  the 
sufferings,  and  the  elevation  of  the  pursuits  of  their  countrymen. 
He  believes  that  the  spirit  of  the  age,  scarcely  less  than  the  genius 
of  our  institutions,  eminently  demands  this  service  from  the  gifted 
men  of  a  Republic  which  is  becoming  the  “  seat  of  Empire.”  That 
he  is  a  Catholic  who  will  exert  his  utmost  efforts  to  vindicate  and 
extend  his  religious  principles,  is  most  true ;  but  that  he  is  also 
a  patriot  and  philanthropist  in  the  broadest  and  most  enlightened 
sense  of  the  terms  ;  and  that  he  will  devote  a  clear  head  and  a  w^arm 
heart  to  the  advocacy  of  rational  freedom,  of  universal  education, 
of  pure  morals,  and  those  true  Christian  virtues,  Charity  and  Peace, 
is  equally  true. 

Four  years  ago,  in  crossing  the  Atlantic,  Bishop  Hughes  en¬ 
countered  a  heavy  gale,  an  account  of  which  he  then  committed 
to  a  journal  kept  for  the  eye  only  of  his  sister.  On  our  passage, 
Avhile  I  was  conversing  with  him  on  a  sermon  he  had  that  day 
preached  on  board,  in  which  he  had  dwelt  very  eloquently  on 
the  power  and  wisdom  of  God  as  displayed  in  the  “  mighty  deep,” 
the  Bishop  referred  to  the  storm  he  had  once  witnessed,  and  on  a 
subsequent  day  read  to  me  the  account  he  then  wrote  of  it.  This 
struck  me  as  one  of  the  most  graphic  and  beautiful  descriptions  of 
a  gale  that  I  ever  met  with.  Believing  that  this  extract  from  the 
Bishop’s  journal  will  interest  others  as  it  did  me,  I  obtained  his  re¬ 
luctant  consent  for  its  publication,  promising  to  state  the  fact  that 
it  was  hastily  written  on  board  ship,  in  obedience  to  a  request  of  a 
sister  that  he  should  keep  a  journal  of  his  tour  for  her,  and  without 
the  slightest  expectation  that  it  would  ever  come  in  contact  with 
types  and  printing  press  : 

*  *  *  *  Oct.  20. — Oh,  what  is  thei’e  in  nature  so  grand  as 

the  mighty  ocean  ?  The  earthquake  and  volcano  are  ever  sublime 
in  their  display  of  destructive  powei’.  But  their  sublimity  is  terrible 
from  the  consciousness  of  danger  with  which  their  exhibitions  are 
witnessed — and  besides,  their  violent  agency  is  impulsive,  sudden 
and  transient.  Not  so  the  glorious  ocean.  In  its  very  playfulness 
you  discover  that  it  can  be  terrible  as  the  earthquake  ;  but  the  spirit 
of  benevolence  seems  to  dwell  in  its  bright  and  open  countenance, 
to  inspire  your  confidence.  The  mountains  and  valleys,  witli  their 
bold  lineaments  and  luxurious  verdure,  are  beautiful ;  but  theirs  is 
not  like  the  beauty  of  the  ocean ;  for  here  all  is  life  and  movement. 
This  is  not  that  stationary  beauty  of  rural  scenery,  in  which  objects 
retain  their  fixed  and  relative  positions,  and  wait  to  be  examined  and 
admired  in  detail.  No,  the  ocean  presents  a  moving  scenery,  w'hich 
passes  in  review  before  and  around  you,  challenging  admiration. 
These  gentle  hearings  of  the  great  deep,  with  its  unruffled  surface — 
these  breaking  up  of  its  waters  into  fantastic  and  varied  forms ; 


VOYAGE  ACROSS  THE  ATLANTIC. 


445 


these  haltings  of  the  waves,  to  be  thrown  forward  presently  into 
new  formations  ;  these  giant  billows,  these  sentinels  of  the  watery 
wilderness — all,  all,  are  beautiful — and  though  in  their  approach, 
they  may  seem  furious  and  pregnant  with  destruction,  yet  there  is 
no  danger,  for  they  come  only  with  salutations  for  the  pilgrim  of 
the  deep,  and  when  they  pass  her  bows  or  stern  retiring  backwards, 
seem,  as  from  obeisance,  to  kiss  their  hands  to  her  in  token  of 
adieu. 

Oct.  31. — This  day  I  was  gratified  with  what  I  had  often  desired 
to  witness — the  condition  of  the  sea  in  a  tempest.  Not  that  I  would 
allege  curiosity  as  a  sufficient  plea  for  desiring  that  which  can  never 
be  witnessed  without  more  or  less  of  danger  to  the  spectator ;  and 
still  less,  when  the  gratification  exposes  others  to  anxiety  and  alarm. 
Let  me  be  understood,  then,  as  meaning  to  say  that  my  desire  to 
witness  a  storm  was  not  of  such  a  kind  as  to  make  me  indifferent  to 
the  apprehension  which  it  is  calculated  to  awaken.  But  aside  from 
this,  there  was  nothing  I  could  have  desired  more.  I  had  contem¬ 
plated  the  ocean  in  all  its  other  phases — and  they  are  almost  in¬ 
numerable.  At  one  time  it  is  seen  reposing  in  perfect  stillness  under 
the  blue  sky  and  bright  sun.  At  another,  slightly  ruffled,  and  thence 
its  motion  causes  his  rays  to  tremble  and  dance  in  broken  fragments 
of  silvery  or  golden  light — and  the  sight  is  dazzled  by  following  the 
track  from  whence  his  beams  are  reflected — whilst  all  besides  seems 
to  frown  in  the  darkness  of  its  ripple.  Again  it  may  be  seen  some- 
v'hat  more  agitated  and  of  a  darker  hue,  under  a  clouded  sky  and 
a  strong  and  increasing  wind.  Then  you  see  an  occasional  wave, 
rising  a  little  above  the  rest,  and  crowning  its  summit  with  that 
crest  of  white,  breaking  from  its  top  and  tumbling  over  like  liquid 
alabaster.  Now  as  far  as  the  eye  can  reach,  you  see  the  dark  ground 
of  ocean  enlivened  and  diversified  by  these  panoramic  snow-hills. 
As  they  approach  near,  and  especially  if  the  sun  be  unclouded,  you 
see  the  light  refracted  through  the  summit  of  the  wave,  in  the  most 
pure,  pale  green,  that  it  is  possible  either  to  behold  or  imagine.  I 
had  seen  the  ocean,  too,  by  moonlight,  and  as  much  of  it  as  may 
be  seen  in  the  dark,  when  the  moon  and  stars  are  veiled.  But 
until  to-day  I  had  never  seen  it  in  correspondence  with  the  tem¬ 
pest. 

After  a  breeze  of  some  sixty  hours  from  the  north  and  north¬ 
west,  the  wind  died  away  about  four  o’clock  yesterday  afternoon. 
The  calm  continued  until  about  nine  o’clock  in  the  evening.  The 
mercury  in  the  barometer  fell,  in  the  meantime,  at  an  extrordinary 
rate ;  and  the  captain  predicted  that  we  should  encounter  “  a  gale  ” 
from  the  southeast.  I  did  not  hear  the  prediction  or  1  should  not 
have  gone  to  bed.  The  “  gale  ”  came  on,  however,  at  about  eleven 
o’clock  ;  not  violent  at  first,  but  increasing  every  moment.  I  slept 
soundly  until  after  five  in  the  morning,  and  then  awoke  with  the 
confused  recollection  of  a  good  deal  of  rolling  and  thumping  through 
the  night,  which  was  occasioned  by  the  dashing  of  the  waves  against 
the  ship.  There  was  an  unusual  trampling  and  shouting — or  rather 


4^0 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


screaming  on  deck,  and  soon  after  a  crash  upon  the  cabin  flo(ir, 
followed  by  one  of  the  most  unearthly  screams  I  ever  heard.  Tne 
passengers,  taking  the  alarm,  sprang  from  their  berths,  and  without 
waiting  to  dress,  ran  about  asking  questions  without  waiting  for  or 
receiving  any  answers.  Plurrying  on  my  clothes,  I  found  that  the 
shriek  };roceeded  from  the  second  steward,  who  had,  by  a  lurch 
of  the  ship,  been  thrown,  in  his  sleep,  from  his  sofa,  some  six  feet  to 
the  cabin  floor.  By  this  time  I  found  such  of  the  passengers  as 
could  stand  at  the  doors  of  the  hurricane-house,  “  holding  on,”  and 
looking  out  in  the  utmost  consternation.  This,  I  exclaimed  mentally, 
is  what  I  wanted,  but  I  did  not  expect  it  so  soon.  It  v/as  still  quite 
dark.  Four  of  the  sails  were  already  in  ribbons.  The  winds  whistled 
through  the  cordage  ;  the  rain  dashed  furiously  and  in  torrents  ;  the 
noise  and  spray  scarcely  less  than  I  found  them  under  the  great 
sheet  at  Niagara.  And  in  the  midst  of  all  this,  the  captain  with 
his  speaking  trumpet,  tlie  ofiicers,  and  the  sailors,  screaming  to 
each  other  in  efforts  to  be  heard,  and  mingling  their  oaths  and 
curses  Vvdth  the  angry  voice  of  the  tempest — this,  all  this,  in  the 
darkness  which  precedes  the  dawning  of  the  day,  and  with  the  fury 
of  the  hurricane,  combined  to  form  as  much  of  the  terribly  sublime 
as  1  ever  Avish  to  witness  concentrated  in  one  scene. 

The  passengers,  though  silent,  were  filled  with  apprehension. 
What  the  extent  of  danger,  and  how  all  this  would  terminate,  were 
questions  Avhich  rose  in  my  own  mind,  although  unconscious  of  fear 
or  trepidation.  But  to  such  questions  there  were  no  answers,  for 
this  knowledge  resides  only  Avith  Him  A\dio  “guides  the  storm  and 
directs  the  Avhirl wind.”  We  had  encountered,  hoAveA^er,  as  yet,  only 
the  commencement  of  a  gale,  AAdiose  terrors  had  been  heightened  by 
its  suddenness,  by  the  darkness,  and  by  the  confusion.  It  continued 
to  blow  furiously  for  tAventy-four  hours  ;  so  that  during  the  whole 
day  1  enjoyed  a  view  which,  apart  from  its  dangers,  Avonld  be  Avorth 
a  voyage  across  the  Atlantic.  The  shi]-)  Avas  driven  madly  through 
the  raging  Avatei’s,  and  even  when  it  was  impossible  to  walk  the 
decks  without  imminent  risk  of  being  lifted  up  and  carried  away  by 
the  Avinds,  the  poor  sailors  Avere  kept  aloft,  tossing  and  SAvinging 
about  the  yards  and  in  the  tops,  clinging  by  their  bodies,  feet  and 
arms,  Avith  mysterious  tenacity,  to  the  spars,  Avhile  their  hands  Avere 
employed  in  taking  in  and  securing  sail.  On  deck  the  officers  and 
men  made  themselves  safe  by  ropes ;  but  hoAv  the  gallant  felloAVS 
aloft  kept  from  being  bloAvn  out  of  the  rigging  Avas  equally  a  matter 
of  Avonder  and  admiration.  IIoAvever,  at  about  seven  o’clock  they 
had  taken  in  Avhat  canvas  had  not  blown  aAvay,  except  the  sails  by 
means  of  Avhich  the  A^essel  is  kept  steady.  At  nine  o’clock  the 
hurricane  had  acquired  its  full  force.  There  was  noAV  no  more 
Avork  to  be  done.  The  ship  lay  to — and  those  vaFo  had  her  in  charge 
only  remained  on  deck  to  be  prepared  for  AA’hatever  of  disaster  might 
occur.  The  breakfast  hour  came,  and  passed,  unheeded  by  most  of 
the  passengers  ;  though  I  found  my  ov.m  appetite  quite  equal  to  the 
spare  alloAvance  of  a  fast-day. 


VOYAGE  ACROSS  THE  ATLANTIC. 


447 


By  this  time  the  sea  was  rolling  up  its  hurricane  waves ;  and  that 
I  might  not  lose  the  grandeur  of  such  a  view,  I  fortified  mysell 
against  the  rain  and  spray,  in  winter  overcoat  and  cork-soled  boots, 
and  in  spite  of  the  fierceness  of  the  gale,  planted  myself  in  a  position 
favorable  for  a  survey  of  all  around  me,  and  in  safety,  so  long  as 
the  ship’s  strong  Avorks  might  hold  together.  I  had  often  seen  paint> 
ings  of  a  storm  at  sea,  but  here  Avas  the  original.  These  imitations 
are  oftentimes  graphic  and  faithful,  as  far  as  they  go,  but  they  are 
necessarily  deficient  in  accompaniments  Avhich  painting  cannot  supply, 
and  are  therefore  feeble  and  ineffective.  You  haA^e,  upon  cauA'as,  the 
ship  and  the  sea,  but  as  they  come  from  the  hands  of  the  artist,  so 
they  remain.  The  universal  motion  of  both  are  thus  arrested  and 
made  stationary.  There  is  no  subject  in  Avhich  the  pencil  of  the 
nainter  acknoAvled^es  more  its  indebtedness  to  the  imaorination  than 
in  its  attempts  to  delineate  the  sea  storm.  But  even  could  the 
attempt  be  successful,  so  far  as  the  eye  is  concerned,  there  Avonld 
still  be  Avanting  the  rushing  of  the  hurricane,  the  groaning  of  the 
masts  and  yards,  the  quick  shrill  rattling  of  the  cordage,  and  the 
ponderous  dashing  of  the  uplifted  deep.  All  these  Avere  numbered 
among  the  advantages  of  my  position,  as  firmly  planted,  I  opened 
eyes  and  ears,  heart  and  soul,  to  the  beautiful  frightfulness  of  the 
tempest  around  and  the  ocean  above  me. 

At  this  time  the  hurricane  Avas  supposed  to  be  at  the  top  of  its 
fury,  and  it  seemed  to  me  quite  impossible  for  Avinds  to  bloAV 
more  violently.  Our  noble  ship  had  been  reduced  in  the  scale  of 
proportion  by  this  sudden  transformation  of  the  elements,  into  di¬ 
mensions  apparently  insignificant.  She  had  become  a  mere  boat  to 
be  lifted  up  and  dashed  doAvn  by  the  caprice  of  Avave  after  waA^e. 

The  Aveather,  especially  along  the  surface  of  the  sea,  Avas  thick 
and  hazy,  so  much  so,  that  you  could  not  see  more  than  a  mile 
in  any  direction.  But  within  that  horizon,  the  spectacle  was  one  of 
majesty  and  poAver.  Within  tliat  circumference,  there  Avere  moun¬ 
tains  and  plains,  tlie  alternate  rising  and  sinking  of  Avhich  seemed 
like  the  action  of  some  volcanic  poAver  beneath.  You  saAv  immense 
masses  of  uplifted  waters,  emerging  out  of  the  darkness  on  one  side, 
and  rushing  and  tumbling  across  the  valleys  that  remained  after  the 
passage  of  their  predecessors,  until,  like  them,  they  rolled  aAvay  into 
similar  darkness  on  the  other.  These  Avaves  Avere  not  numerous, 
nor  rapid  in  their  movements ;  but  in  massiveness  and  elevation  they 
Avere  the  legitimate  oftspring  of  a  true  tempestt  It  Avas  this  eleva¬ 
tion  that  imparted  the  beautifully  pale  and  transparent  green  to  tlie 
billows,  from  the  summit  of  Avhich  the  toppling  white  foam  spilled 
itself  oA'er  and  came  falling  down  toAvardS  you  Avith  the  dash  of  a 
cataract.  Not  less  magnificent  than  the  Avaves  themselves,  Avere 
the  varying  dimensions  of  the  valleys  that  remained  betAveen 
them.  You  would  expect  to  see  these  ocean  plains  enjoying,  as 
it  were,  a  moment  of  repose,  but  during  the  hurricane’s  frenzy  this 
was  not  the  case.  Their  Avaters  had  lost  for  a  moment  the  onward 
motion  of  the  billoAVS,  but  they  Avere  far  from  being  at  rest.  They 


448 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


preserved  tbe  green  hues  and  foamy  scarfs  of  the  mighty  insurgents 
that  had  passed  over  them.  The  angry  aspect  they  presented  to 
the  eye  that  gazed,  almost  vertically,  upon  their  boiling  eddies, 
wheeling  about  in  swift  currents,  with  surface  glowing  and  hissing 
as  if  in  contact  with  heated  iron  ;  all  this  showed  that  their  depths 
were  not  unvisited  by  the  tempest,  but  that  its  spirit  had  descended 
beneath  the  billows  to  heave  them  tip  presently  in  all  the  rushing 
convulsive  violence  of  the  general  commotion.  But  mountain  and 
plain,  of  these  infuriated  waters,  were  covered,  some  on  the  very 
summit,  and  on  the  lee  “  side”  of  the  waves,  with  the  ivhite  foam 
of  the  water  against  which  the  winds  first  struck,  and  which,  from 
high  points,  was  lifted  up  into  spray ;  but  in  all  other  places,  hurled 
along  with  the  intense  rapidity  of  its  motion,  until  the  whole  pros¬ 
pect,  on  the  lee  side  of  the  ship,  seemed  one  field  of  drifting  snow, 
dashed  along  furiously  to  its  dark  borders  by  the  howling  storm. 

In  the  mean  time  our  ship  gathered  herself  up  into  the  compactness 
and  buoyancy  of  a  duck — and  except  the  feathers  that  had  been 
plucked  from  her  wings  before  she  had  time  to  fold  her  pinions — 
she  rode  out  the  whirlwind  without  damage,  and  in  triumph.  It 
was  not  the  least  remarkable,  and  by  far  the  most  comfortable 
circumstance,  in  this  combination  of  all  that  is  grand  and  terrible, 
that,  furious  as  were  the  winds,  towering  and  threatening  as  were 
the  billows,  our  glorious  bark  preserved  her  equilibrium  against  the 
fury  of  the  one,  and  her  buoyancy  in  despite  of  the  alternate  prec¬ 
ipice  and  avalanche  of  the  other.  True  it  is,  she  was  made  to 
whistle  through  her  cordage,  to  creak  and  moan 'through  all  her 
timbers,  even  to  her  masts.  True  it  is,  she  was  made  to  plunge  and 
rear,  to  tremble  and  reel  and  stagger  ;  still  she  continued  to  scale 
the  watery  mountain,  and  ride  on  its  very  summit,  until,  as  it 
rolled  onward  from  beneath  her,  she  descended  gently  on  her  path¬ 
way,  ready  to  triumph  again  and  again  over  each  succeeding  wave. 
At  such  a  moment  it  was  a  matter  of  profound  deliberation  which 
most  to  admire,  the  majesty  of  God  in  the  wdnds  and  waves,  or  His 
goodness  and  wisdom  in  enabling  his  creatures  to  contend  with  and 
overcome  the  elements  even  in  the  fierceness  of  their  anger  !  To  cast 
one’s  eyes  abroad  in  the  scene  that  surrounded  me  at  this  moment,  and 
to  think  man  should  have  said  to  himself,  “  I  will  build  myself  an 
ark  in  the  midst  of  you,  and  ye  shall  not  prevent  my  passage — 
nay,  ye  indomitable  waves  shall  bear  me  iqi ;  and  ye  winds  shall 
Avaft  me  onward  !”  And  yet  there  we  were  in  the  fullness  of  this 
fearful  experiment ! 

I  had  never  believed  it  possible  for  a  vessel  to  encounter  such  a 
hurricane  without  being  da’shed  or  torn  to  pieces,  at  least  in  all  her 
masts  and  rigging ;  for  I  am  persuaded  that  had  the  same  tempest 
passed  as  furiously  over  your  town,  during  the  same  length  of  time, 
it  would  have  left  scarcely  a  house  standing.  The  yielding  character 
of  the  element  in  which  the  vessel  is  launched,  is  the  great  secret  of 
safely  on  such  occasions.  Hence  when  gales  occur  on  the  Avide 
ocean  there  is  but  little  danger ;  but  Avhen  they  drive  you  upon 


VOYAGE  ACROSS  THE  ATLANTIC. 


449 


breakers  on  a  lee  shore,  when  the  keel  conies  in  contact  with  “  the 
too  solid  earth”  then  it  is  impossible  to  escape  shipwreck.  I  never 
experienced  a  sensation  of  fear  on  the  ocean — but  the  tempest  has 
increased  my  confidence  tenfold,  not  only  in  the  sea  but  in  ihe  ship. 
It  no  longer  surprises  me  that  few  vessels  are  lost  at  sea— for  they 
and  their  element  are  made  for  each  other.  And  the  practical  con¬ 
clusion  from  this  experience  of  a  gale  is  encguraging  for  all  my  future 
navigation.  I  shall  have  confidence  in  my  ship  now,  as  I  have  ever 
had  in  the  sea.  Ever  since  my  eyes  first  rested  on  the  ocean,  I 
liave  cherished  an  instinctive  affection  for  it,  as  if  it  was  something 
capable  of  sympathy  and  benevolence.  When  calm  it  is  to  me  a 
slumbering  infant.  (Your  own  Moses,  for  instance.)  How  tranquilly 
it  sleeps  ! — no  trace  of  grief  or  guilt  is  on  its  forehead — no  trouble 
in  its  breast.  It  is  a  mirror  in  which  the  clear  blue  sky  beholds  the 
reflection  of  its  brightness  and  purity. 


20 


450 


ARCHBISHOr  HUGHES. 


LETTERS  ON  THE  MORAL  CAUSES  WHICH  PRO¬ 
DUCED  THE  EVIL  SPIRIT  OF  THE  TIMES. 

BISHOP  HUGHES  TO  MAYOR  HARPER,  IN  REFERENCE  TO  ATTACKS  MADE  ON 
HIM  BY  EDITORS  OF  CERTAIN  NEWSPAPERS. 

To  the  Ron.  James  Harper.,  Mayor  of  Hew  YorTc : 

Sill, — I  am  in  the  receipt  o-f  aletter  from  ayoung  “  Native  American,”  sigineft 
with  his  proper  name,  in  which  he  advises  me  that  he  has  provided  himself 
with  a  “poignard,”  by  which  I  am  to  “bite  the  dust.”  If  he  had  not  put  his 
name  to  this  document,  I  should  have  destroyed  it,  as  my  rule  is  with  all 
anonymous  communications,  without  even  glancing  at  its  contents.  I  cannot 
answer  such  a  correspondent ;  but  placing  his  letter  in  your  hands,  if  you  wish 
it,  I  shall  pursue  the  tenor  of  my  way,  and  be  found  wherever  ray  duties  as  a 
Catholic  Bishop  and  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  require  me  to  be.  I  hope 
that  I  am  at  peace  with  God ;  I  know  that  I  am  at  peace,  so  far  as  in  me  lies, 
with  all  men  ;  and  thus  T  am  ready  to  yield  my  life  into  the  hands  of  its 
adorable  Author,  when  and  as  He  may  dispose. 

But  if  my  correspondent  should  execute  his  own  prophecy  as  he  says,  I 
deem  it  proper  to  have  put  on  record  such  matters  as  are  due  to  my  own 
reputation,  and  to  my  country,  at  a  moment  like  the  p^resent.  I  shall  be  some¬ 
what  tedious  ;  but  I  bespeak  your  patience — for  I  wish  to  say  to  all,  and  it 
may  not  be  so  convenient  at  another  time.  I  shall  use  no  term  of  reproach  or 
bitterness  in  reference  to  matters  of  recent  occurrence,  on  which  too  many 
have  already  been  uttered.  No  man  deplores  more  deeply  the  melancholy  re¬ 
sults  of  intemperate  discussions,  whether  on  one  side  or  on  the  other,  in  a  sister 
capital,  than  I  do ;  and  for  months  past  it  has  been  my  study  to  avert  similar 
scenes  m  this  city.  From  the  moment  when  a  new  party  was  commenced, 
based  on  the  principles  of  hostility  to  a  particular  religion,  and  to  foreigners, 
even  though  naturalized,  I  anticipated  the  results  w'ith  the  deepest  apprehen¬ 
sion  for  the  peace  of  the  community  and  the  honor  of  the  country.  Not  that  I 
dispute  the  right  of  men,  in  the  abstract,  to  form  themselves  into  combinations 
on  any  principle  which  their  duty  to  their  country  sanctions ;  but  topics  of 
this  description  were,  as  I  conceived,  too  exciting  in  their  nature.  F rom  a 
very  early  period,  I  prevented  the  only  papers  that  atfect  to  represent  Cath¬ 
olic  interests  from  opposing  either  of  the  principles  in  the  progress  of  the 
new  party.  When  the  private  interest,  or  enterprise  of  individuals,  ui'ged 
them  to  establish  newspapers,  intended  expressly  to  oppose  the  progress  of 
“Native  Americanism,”  and  to  uphold  the  constitutional  rights  of  foreign¬ 
ers  of  all  religions,  I  peremptorily  refused  to  give  either  patronage  or  aj> 
probation — foreseeing,  as  I  imagined,  to  what  point  such  antagonism  must 
lead.  I  even  caused  certain  articles  to  be  published,  which  should  fall 
under  the  eye  of  a  large  portion  of  my  own  flock,  and  which  might  caution 
them  against  the  temptation  of  retaliating  insult  in  arraying  themselves  in 
opposition  to  the  principles  of  this  new  party.  I  caused  them  thus  to  be 
reminded  that,  if  those  principles  were  wrong,  time  and  the  good  sense  of 
the  community  would  be.  the  best  remedy;  whilst  Catholics,  and,  above  all, 
the  Irisli  Catholics,  were  entirely  unfitted  to  aj)ply  a  corrective.  I  had  the 
consolation  to  witness  the  good  effects  of  this  advice,  so  that  boys  ami 
young  men  could  march  even  in  the  night,  through  streets  almost  entirely 
occui)ied  by  Irish  Catholics,  ivith  life  and  drum,  with  illuminated  banners, 
bearing  such  inscriptions  as  that  of  “  No  Popery”  as  a  pulflic  and  political 
device  !  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether  the  Native  American  party  had,  or 
had  not,  a  right  to  adopt  such  devices,  and  display  them  through  such  a 
population.  But  even  supposing  they  had  the  right,  was  there  not  some- 


LETTER  TO  MAYOR  HARPER. 


451 


thin"  due  to  the  weakness  of  poor  human  nahire  ?  to  the  religionis  rights 
and  feelings  of  men,  under  our  Constitution  ?  to  the  peculiar  susceptibility 
of  the  Irish,  and  especially  in  reference  to  this  identical  subject,  which  re¬ 
minded  them  of  the  hereditary  degradation  from  which  they  thought  to 
have  escaped  when  they  touched  these  shores? 

I  am  grateful  to  Almighty  God,  that  notwithstanding  these  injudicious 
exhibitions,  no  accident  or  disturbance  has  occurred  during  the  progress  of 
the  movements  which  have  placed  you  in  your  present  honorable  station. 
And  I  would  to  God!  that  under  all  provocation,  a  similar  forbearance  had 
been  practiced  in  Philadelphia.  Yet,  notwithstanding  all  my  solicitude  and 
efforts,  so  feverish  and  morbid,  so  bewildered  and  diseased,  had  the  public 
mind  become,  in  certain  quarters,  on  the  subject  of  Popeuy,  that  a  lie  of  not 
more  than  live  lines,  circulated  through  any  of  our  papers  which  might 
desire  to  create  riots,  would  have  been  sufficient  to  have  produced  the  most 
fearful  results. 

M}  name  and  character  were  assailed  in  every  public  meeting  of  your 
special  constituents.  I  was  abused  as  a  politician ; — as  a  meddler  with  the 
laws; — as  an  intriguer  with  parties;  and  a  man  not  only  capable,  but  actu¬ 
ally  designing  to  invade  the  liberties  of  the  country.  The  fearful  crisis, 
which  1  claim  the  merit  of  having  prevented,  in  this  city,  but  which  has  left 
its  melancholy  stigma  in  another  city,  equally  dear  to  me,  has  rendered 
these  calumnies  against  my  character  so  important,  that  I  now  meet  my 
accusers  in  the  triumphant  manner  which  you  will  see,  before  the  close  of 
this  communication.  But  before  I  enter  further  upon  my  subject,  I  must 
tell  you  a  few  words  respecting  myself,  which,  being  of  so  little  importance 
to  the  public  at  large,  I  shall  make  as  brief  as  possible.  It  is  twenty-seven 
years  since  I  c.arne  to  this  country.  I  became  a  citizen,  therefore,  as  soon  as 
my  majority  of  age  and  other  circumstances  permitted.  My  early  ancestors 
were  from  Wales;  and  very  possibly  shared  with  Strongbow  and  his  com¬ 
panions,  in  the  plunder  which  rewarded  the  first  successful  invaders  of  lovely 
but  unfortunate  Ireland.  Of  course,  from  the  time  of  their  conversion  from 
Paganism,  they  were  Catholics.  You,  sir,  wdio  must  be  ac<piainted  with  the 
melancholy  annals  of  religious  intolerance  in  Ireland,  may  remember  that, 
w'hen  a  traitor  to  his  country,  and  for  what  I  know,  to  his  creed  also, 
M’Mahon,  Prince  of  Monnaghan,  wdshed  to  make  his  peace  with  the  Irish 
Government  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  traitor’s  wmrk  vdiich  he  volunteered 
to  accomplish  was  “  to  root  out  the  whole  Sept  of  the  Ilughesf  He  did  not, 
however,  succeed  in  destroying  them,  although  he  “rooted  them  out;” 
proving,  as  a  moral  for  future  times,  that  persecution  cannot  always  accom¬ 
plish  what  it  proposes.  In  the  year  1817,  a  descendant  of  the  Sept  of  the 
Hughes  came  to  the  United  States  of  America.  He  was  the  son  of  a  farmer 
of  moderate  but  comfortable  means.  lie  landed  on  these  shores  friendless, 
and  with  but  a  few  guineas  in  his  purse.  He  never  received  of  the  charity 
of  any  man ;  he  never  borrowed  of  any  man  without  repaying;  lie  never 
had  more  than  a  few  dollars  at  a  time ;  he  never  had  a  patron,  in  the  Church 
or  out  of  it;  and  it  is  he  who  has  the  honor  to  address  you  now,  as  Catholic 
Bishop  of  New  York. 

I  am  aware  that  a  certain  lady,  who  writes  for  one  of  the  Boston  papers,  has 
given  both  her  own  name  and  mine,  in  connection  with  the  statement  that  I 
“  entered  the  service  of  Bishop  Dubois  as  a  gardener,  and  that  he  having  dis¬ 
covered  in  me  the  stuff  which  bishops  and  cardinals  are  made  of,  with  intellect 
enough  to  have  governed  the  Church  in  its  most  prosperous  times,  educated 
me  on  the  strength  of  this  discovery.”  I  would  just  remark,  with  all  respect 
for  this  amiable,  but  as  I  must  say,  silly  lady,  that  she  is  mistaken,  and  exhibits 
only  the  stuff  the  Boston  papers  are  made  of.”  My  connection  with  Bishop 
Dubois  was  in  virtue  of  a  regular  contract  between  us,  in  which  neither  was 


452 


ABCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


required  to  acknowledge  any  obligation  to  the  other.  T,  however,  felt  tl.at  the 
kindness  of  that  venerable  and  saintly  prelate,  and  the  friendship  which 
included  me  with  so  many  other  young  men  to  whom  it  w^as  extended. 

I  entered  tlie  college  the  first  day,  an  utter  stranger  to  Bishop  Dubois  until 
then.  I  v/as  to  superintend  the  garden  as  a  compensation  for  my  expenses 
in  the  house,  until  a  vacancy  should  occur  by  which  I  might  be  appointed  a 
teacher  for  such  classes  as  I  should  be  fit  to  take  charge  of.  I  continued  in 
this  ■way,  during  the  first  nine  mouths  of  my  stay  at  college,  prosecuting  iny 
studies  under  a  private  preceptor.  The  rest  of  my  time,  between  seven. and 
eight  years,  I  continued  to  prosecute  my  own  studies,  and,  at  the  saine  time, 
to  teach  the  classes  that  were  assigned  me.  At  the  end  of  that  period  I 
was  ordained  priest,  and  stationed  in  Philadelphia.  Here  my  public  life 
commenced.  After  eleven  years  from  this  time,  I  was  sent,  not  by  my  own 
choice,  to  be  the  Assistant-Bishop  of  Hew  York.  I  had  formed,  during 
these  years,  friendships  ever  to  be  cherished  in  many  of  the  most  respectable 
families,  Protestant  as  well  as  Catholic,  in  Philadelphia.  I  refer  to  them, 
without  distinction  of  creed,  for  what  was  my  character  as  a  clergyman  and 
a  citizen. 

If,  sir,  you  will  weigh  all  these  circumstances,  you  will  jjerceive  imme¬ 
diately  that,  were  I  a  person  of  the  character  assigned  to  me  in  the  late  de¬ 
nunciations  of  those  who  assail  me,  it  is  hardly  probable  that  I  should  be 
now  occupying,  by  the  judgment  of  others,  the  situation  in  which  I  am 
placed.  I  am  a  citizen.  I  undei’stand  the  rights  of  a  citizen,  and  the  du¬ 
ties  also.  I  understand  the  genius,  the  constitution,  and  history  of  the 
country.  My  feelings,  and  habits,  and  thoughts  have  been  so  much  iden¬ 
tified  with  all  that  is  American,  that  I  had  almost  forgotten  I  was  a  for¬ 
eigner,  until  recent  circumstances  have  brought  it  too  painfully  to  my 
recollection.  This,  and  other  matters  yet  to  be  treated  of,  must  be  my 
apology  for  bringing  into  public  notice  anything  so  uninteresting  as  my  per¬ 
sonal  history  or  private  aftairs.  The  retrospect,  however,  has  brought  back 
to  my  mind  the  recollections  of  youth.  I  perceived,  then,  that  the  intolerance 
of  my  own  country  had  left  me  no  inheritance,  except  that  of  a  name 
which,  though  humble,  was  untarnished.  In  the  future,  the  same  intoler¬ 
ance  was  a  barrier  to  every  hope  in  my  native  land  ;  and  there  was  but  one 
other  country  in  which  I  was  led  to  believe  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
citizens  rendered  all  men  equal.  I  can  even  now  remember  my  reflections 
on  first  beholding  the  American  flag.  It  never  crossed  my  mind  that  a 
time  might  come  when  that  flag,  the  emblem  of  the  freedom  just  alluded  to, 
should  be  divided,  by  apportioning  its  stars  to  the  citizens  of  native  birth,  and 
its  stripes  only  as  the  portion  of  the  naturalized  foreigner.  I  was,  of  course, 
but  young  and  inexperienced ;  and  yet,  even  recent  events  have  not  dimin¬ 
ished  my  confidence  in  that  ensign  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  It  is  pos¬ 
sible  that  I  was  mistaken ;  but  still  I  cling  to  the  delusion,  if  it  be  one,  and 
as  I  trusted  to  that  flag  on  a  Nation's  faitli^  I  think  it  more  likely  that  its 
stri]3es  will  disappear  altogether ;  and  that  before  it  shall  be  employed  as 
an  instrument  of  bad  faith  towards  the  foreigners  of  every  land,  the  white 
portions  will  'blush  into  crimson  ;  and  then  the  glorious  stars  alone  will 
remain. 

yince  my  arrival  in  New  York,  my  public  and  private  life  has  been  de¬ 
voted  sedulously  to  the  duties  of  my  station.  One  of  the  first  things  that 
struck  me,  as  a  deplorable  circumstance  in  the  condition  of  my  flock,  was 
the  ignorance  and  vice  to  which  the  children  of  Catholic  and  emigrant  pa¬ 
rents  were  exposed.  I  had  the  simplicity  to  believe  that,  in  endeavoring 
to  elevate  them  to  virtue  and  usefulness  through  the  means  of  education,  I 
should  be  at  once  rendering  a  service  to  them,  and  discharging  a  duty  to 
my  country,  the  latter  of  which,  especially,  would  be  appreciated  by  good 


LETTER  TO  MAYOR  HARPER. 


463 


men  of  aii  creeds.  I  intended  to  take  suck  measures  as  might  be  necessary 
for  this  [)urpose  on  my  return  from  Europe,  in  the  year  1840,  without,  how¬ 
ever,  having  exchanged,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  opinions  with  any  one  on  that 
subject.  But  I  I'ound,  on  my  return,  that  it  had  been  sufficient  to  attract 
the  attention  of  the  public  authorities,  and  had  become  a  public  topic  in 
the  annual  Message  of  the  Governor  of  this  State.  I  found,  also,  that  like 
other  topics  of  that  date,  it  was  instantly  turned  into  a  political  question, 
even  by  the  peoiile  who  had  not — though  most  interested — the  discernment 
to  understand  the  patriotism  and  humanity  by  which  it  had  been  dictated. 
Meetings  had  been  held  upon  the  subject ;  intemperate  language  had  been 
used ;  disorder,  and  almost  amounting  to  violence,  had  characterized  those 
meetings;  and  for  these  reasons  I  resolved  to  attend  them  in  person — 
expressly  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  out  an  unfortunate  class  of  political 
underlings,  who  had  been  accustomed  to  traffic  in  their  simplicity.  In 
these  meetings,  held  from  time  to  time,  the  question  %vas  discussed — the 
imperfect  education  afforded  by  our  own  charity  schools — the  vast  num¬ 
bers  that  could  not  be  received  at  them,  and  would  not  be  sent  to  the 
schools  by  the  Public  School  Society — on  account  of  the  strong  anti- 
Catholic  tendencies  which  they  manifested,  through  the  medium  of  objec¬ 
tionable  books,  prejudiced  teachers,  and  sectarian  influences.  This  was 
followed  by  a  respectful  petition  to  the  Common  Council  of  the  city.  Be¬ 
fore  that  Council  I  was  permitted  to  state  the  grievances  complained  of. 
A  discussion  took  place,  growing  out  of  remonstrances  agaimst  the  petition, 
and  it  was  Anally  rejected  by  almost  a  unanimous  vote.  This  the  portion 
of  the  people  who  considered  themselves  aggrieved  in  the  matter  had 
anticipated.  But  this  was  necessary  —  before  submitting  the  case  to 
the  Legislature  of  the  State.  In  due  time,  however,  petitions  were  for¬ 
warded,  signed  by  a  large  number  of  citizens,  both  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  natives  as  well  as  foreigners.  The  prayer  of  this  petition 
was  received  favorably,  because  it  seemed  to  be  but  reasonable  and 
just.  A  bill  to  remedy  the  evil  was  drawn  up,  I  think,  by  the  Su])erin- 
tendent  of  Schools,  and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  passed  the  House  of  Bepre- 
sentatives.  It  was  at  the  close  of  the  session,  and  lost  in  the  other  House. 
Of  the  fitness  of  its  provisions  to  remedy  the  evil  I  am  altogether  unable  to 
speak ;  but  it  was  believed  by  all  that  the  Legislature,  as  soon  as  it  could 
understand  the  nature  of  the  grievance,  and  the  necessity  for  a  remedy, 
would  not  fail  to  remove  the  one  and  provide  for  the  other.  Accordingly, 
the  question,  notwTthstanding  the  many  folds  of  misrejjresentation  and 
prejudice  in  which  its  numerous  opponents  endeavored  to  involve  it,  was 
making  much  progress  in  the  public  mind.  Meetwigs  continued  to  be  held 
from  time  to  time,  with  open  doors  and  free  admission.  Protestants  as 
well  as  Catholics  attended,  and  eometiines  took  part.  I  attended  them  all, 
expressly  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  that  politics  should  not  be  introduced. 
Matters  thus  progressed, — the  advocates  of  the  measure  being  divided,  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  predilections,  between  one  party  and  another.  But  the 
oj^ponents  of  the  measure,  in  the  meantime, — numerous  and  zealous  as 
they  were, — had  not  been  idle,  but  had  presented  the  question  to  the  pub¬ 
lic  in  every  false  light  that  ingenuity  could  devise,  as  may  be  seen  by  re¬ 
ferring  to  whole  pages  of  their  calumnies,  at  that  time,  about  an  “  Union 
of  Church  and  State,”  &c.,  which  have  been  refuted  and  forgotten.  Just 
previous  to  the  election,  when,  as  it  appears,  parties  had  made  their  nomi¬ 
nations  for  the  Legislature,  the  opponents  of  edueation  (except  with  in¬ 
fringement  of  conscience)  called  upon  the  voters  of  both  parties  to  send  no 
one  to  Albany  unless  such  as  should  give  a  pledge,  before  election,  to  re¬ 
fuse  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners.  For  this  fact,  I  refer  to  the  editorials 
of  that  date  of  the  VommerciaL  Advertiner  and  the  Journal  of  Commerce, 


454 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


among  other  papers  of  the  city.  This  plan  was  acted  upon  instantly,  and 
to  an  extent  which  left  the  petitioners  no  alternative  but  to  vote  for  men 
pledged  in  their  face  to  refuse  what  they  regarded  as  simple  justice. 
Ilence,  in  spite  of  all  my  efforts  to  prevent,  the  question  forced  itself  in  a 
political  form  on  the  attention  of  the  people,  who  claimed  one  thing — 
namely,  education — without  another  thing— namely,  the  violation  of  their 
conscience, — but  which  the  Commercial  Advertiser  and  its  allies  would 
not  allow  to  be  separated. 

The  very  last  meeting  of  the  friends  of  education,  previous  to  the  elec¬ 
tion,  was  the  moment  when  this  unworthy  stratagem  came  under  public 
attention.  A  number  of  individuals,  who  were  versed  in  these  matters, 
had,  however,  taken  the  precaution  to  ascertain,  that  certain  candidates 
had  refused  to  sign  the  jjledge ;  and  were  ready  to  go  to  Albany  free  to 
vote  for  the  prayer  of  the  jjetitioners,  or  against  it,  as  their  own  sense  of 
justice  towards  their  constituents  might  dictate.  Others  had  already  given 
their  promise  against  it.  These  persons  then  suggested  that  names,  with¬ 
out  any  hopes  of  election,  but  simply  to  exercise  the  right  of  voting  on, 
should  be  substituted  to  make  up  the  deficieucy.  I  claimed  it  as  my  right. 
I  regarded  it  as  iny  duty,  on  that  occasion  to  urge  those  who  were  friendly 
to  a  large  2)ortion  of  the  neglected  children  of  New  York,  to  vote  for  no 
man  who  had  pre-judged  their  case,  in  the  hope  of  being  elected ;  and  who 
had  bound  himself  to  refuse  them  the  protection  of  the  laws,  whatever 
might  be  the  justice  of  their  case.  My  argument  was  this — urged  with  all 
the  limited  powers  of  reasoning  that  I  possessed — that  they  deserved  the 
injustice  and  degradation  of  which  they  complained,  if  they  voted  for 
judges  publicly  pledged  beforehand  to  pass  sentence  against  them.  Of 
course,  in  a  speech  of  some  twenty  minutes,  I  must  have  developed  this 
aj’gumeut,  and  i^resented  it  in  every  variety  of  form,  capable  of  making  it 
understood,  and  pointing  out  the  more  liberal  attitude  of  those  who,  as  not 
being  jjledged  in  favor  of  either  side,  were  left  free,  to  do  impartial  justice 
in  the  premises.  If  this  was  a  political  speech,  then  have  I  made  one 
political  speech  in  my  life.  There  were  high-minded,  wmll  educated,  and 
honorable  Protestant  gentlemen  present,  and  to  whom  I  appeal  with  con- 
ffdence,  that  —  twisted  or  turned  by  jjerverse  ingenuity  as  it  might  be, 
my  speech  amounted  to  the  principle  just  laid  down— to  the  development 
of  it,  and  nothing  more.  But  there  wms  a  reporter  of  Bennett’s  there,  who 
made  such  a  speech  as  he  thought  proper — which  was  afterwards,  as  I  have 
reason  to  believe,  fitted  up  for  the  purpose  of  producing  one  of  Bennett’s 
“  tremendous  excitements,”  and  making  the  “  ‘  Herald,’  always  the  first  and 
most  enterprising  paper  in  New  York.”  Having  taken  this  report — having 
studded  it  with  the  gems  of  his  own  ribaldry,  and  made  some  half  a  column 
of  editorial  comments,  in  all  that  mock  gravity  of  which  Bennett  is  capable, 
the  Herald  ”  of  the  next  morning  became  the  l)asis  and  fountain  of  all  the 
vituperation,  calumny,  and  slander,  which  have  been  heaped  on  “  Bishop 
Hughes,”  through  the  United  States,  from  that  day  until  this.  From  the 
“  Herald  ”  the  report  was  copied  into  the  “  Commercial  Advertisers”  of  that 
afternoon — the  editor.  Colonel  Stone,  taking  special  cai'e  to  substitute  the 
words  a  “  morning  print,”  instead  of  IBennett’s  “  Herald,”  lest  his  own  views 
of  the  question  might  be  injuriously  aifected  by  the  character  of  his  author¬ 
ity,  if  that  authority  were  known.  Then  followed  the  commentaries  and 
columns  of  abuse  which  filled  the  other  papers,  and  ran  throughout  the 
counti’y,  each  editor  adding  (particularly  while  the  delusion  lasted)  his  own 
editorial  for  the  benefit  of  Ids  readers. 

I  must,  how'ever,  do  several  of  the  city  papers  the  justice  to  say,  that 
either  they  are  more  honest  or  better  informed,  than  their  colleagues  of  the 
press ;  they  understood  the  question,  and  declined  to  take  any  part  in  the 


LETTER  TO  MAYOR  HARPER. 


455 


hue  and  cry  that  was  so  malignantly  raised  about  it.  It  is  equally  due  to 
truth  to  say  also,  that  several  others  after  they  liad  discovered  their  mis¬ 
take,  retreated  from  the  position  which  they  had  first  assumed.  But  the 
occasion  was  too  good  for  the  purpose  of  certain  parties,  not  to  be  improv¬ 
ed  for  their  ulteiior  designs.  Accordingly,  as  the  oceu])ants  of  many  of 
the  pulpits  of  the  city  had  entertained  their  congregations  with  political 
sermons  on  the  School  Question,  for  months  l)efore, — so  also,  for  months 
aftei’,  whatever  might  be  their  text  from  the  Bible,  the  abuse  of  the  Catho¬ 
lic  religion  under  tlie  nickname  of  pai>ncy,  together  with  all  the  slang,  and 
all  the  calumnies  furnished  by  the  New  York  Ilej'ald,  the  Gommercial  Ad¬ 
vertiser,  the  Journal  of  Commerce,  and  other  jjapers  of  that  stamp,  was  sure 
to  make  the  body  of  the  sermon.  By  this  process  the  minds  of  the  people 
were  excited,  their  passions  inflamed,  their  credulity  imjjosed  upon,  and 
their  confidence  perverted.  Then  came  the  new  party.  It  is  impossible 
that  the  ti’sxining  of  the  pulpits  should  not  have  predisposed  a  large  num¬ 
ber  of  persons  to  join  in  the  movement,  which  they  had  been  taught  to  be¬ 
lieve  as  a  <luty  of  their  religion.  Who  can  read  without  horror  the  denun¬ 
ciations,  the  slanders,  the  infuriated  appeals,  which  have  been  spoken  and 
written ;  in  which  Pleaven  and  earth  have  been  mingled  together  in  a  con¬ 
fusion  of  rhetoric  and  passion,  to  promote  tlM3  objects  of  this  new  combina¬ 
tion.  It  has  succeeded  in  our  city,  and  I  for  one  am  not  sorry  at  it.  But 
at  the  same  time,  if  that  portion  of  the  citizens  •who  have  been  so  atro¬ 
ciously  abused,  had  not  had  the  good  sense,  the  patriotism,  the  love  of 
order,  wfliich  enabled  them  to  restrain  themselves,  even  under  the  greatest 
insults  that  can  be  offered  to  the  feelings  of  men,  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
■what  might  have  been  the  consequence.  Closing,  then,  this  sketch  of  the 
question  in  so  much  as  it  relates  to  others,  I  shall  now  call  your  attention 
to  sometliing  which  is  personal  to  myself.  t 

Sir,  I  pretend,  and  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  prove  to  you,  that  these 
slanders,  originating  in  Bennett’s  Herald,  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  the 
Journal  of  Commerce,  the  New  YorTc  Sun,  and  for  a  moment,  (but  for  a 
moment,)  the  Evening  Post — that  these  slanders, — repeated,  embellished, 
enlarged,  and  evangelized  from  many  of  the  pulpits  of  the  city — that  these 
slanders,  re-echoed  in  the  public  lectures  of  the  liev.  Mr.  Cheever  and  other 
clergymen  of  his  spirit— that  these  slanders  forming  the  staple  of  political 
excitement  in  the  association  which  placed  you  in  the  honorable  chair  you 
occupy,  and  which,  I  am  happy  to  feay,  as  far  as  I  know,  you  are  worthy  tc 
fill, — I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  prove  that  all  these  slanders,  I  say,  were, 
and  are,  and  will  be  to  eternity,  slanders,  and  nothing  more.  You,  of 
course,  will  be  astonished  at  reading  this  declaration.  You  will  think  it 
impossible  that  so  many  respectable  editors,  so  many  eloquent  orators,  and, 
above  all,  so  many  grave  and  reverend  divines,  should  have  united  in  de¬ 
ceiving  the  people  of  New  York, — from  the  press,  from  the  rostrum,  from 
the  pulpit, — by  denouncing  Bishoix  Hughes  as  an  enemy  of  the  Bible — as 
an  intriguer  with  political  parties — as  a  blackener  of  the  public  school 
books, — if  Bishop  Hughes  had  not  given  them  cause  to  build  such  accusa¬ 
tions  in  the  foundations  of  truth, — and  yet,  sir,  there  is  no  truth  either  in  the 
foundation  or  the  superstructure.  I  now  call  upon  these  editors,  orators 
and  clergymen  to  stand  forth  and  furnish  the  facts,  proving  the  truth  of 
one  single  charge  against  me.  I  am  aware  that,  tracing  up  these  falsehoods 
to  their  foundation,  the  public,  who  have  been  so  long  deceived,  will  refer 
to  the  testimony  and  the  denunciations  of  certain  clergymen,  -who  are  zeal¬ 
ous  for  the  Bible,  but  unfortunately  little  acquainted  with  the  charitable 
and  mild  spirit  which  the  Bible  inculcates.  If  I  ask  them  why  they  mis¬ 
led,  possibly  without  intending  it,  their  flocks  to  such  an  extent,  they  will 
refer  me  to  the  public  newspapers.  If  1  call  on  the  editors  of  the  public 


456 


AKCHCISIIOP  HUGHES. 


newspapera,  it  will  be  found  that  they  copied  one  from  another  until  yoa 
reach  the  second  link,  who  is  Colonel  Stone,  of  the  Commercial  Advertiser, 
and  he  will  tell  me  that  he  took  it  from  a  “  morning  print,”  that  print  be¬ 
ing  no  other  than  Bennett’s  Herald.  Of  course  this  does  not  touch  the 
original  articles  in  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  less  scurrilous,  but  more 
injurious  than  those  of  Bennett  himself,  inasmuch  as  Colonel  Stone  is 
looked  upon  as  a  highly  respectable  man.  Of  the  Journal  of  Commerce  I 
shall  say  nothing,  as  its  editor  appears  to  me  laboring  under  a  weakness  or 
duplicity  of  moral  vision,  for  the  eflects  and  defects  of  which  he  is,  per¬ 
haps,  scarcely  accountable.  But  I  have  traced  these  calumnies  now  to 
their  jJrimary  witnesses — James  Gordon  Bennett  and  Wm.  L.  Stone. 

It  may  be  asked — in  the  supposition  here  made— why  I  submitted  in 
silence  to  these  slanders  for  so  long  a  time.  My  answers  are,  in  the  first 
jjlace,  that  my  duties  left  me  but  little  time  to  attend  to  them.  Secondly, 
that  if  I  refuted  one  calumny  to-day,  I  should  have  to  refute  another  to¬ 
morrow.  Thirdly,  that  one  class  of  my  editorial  assailants  was  what  men 
usually  call  too  contemptible,  and  another  class  too  bigoted,  to  make  it 
worth  while.  But  I  confess  that  the  principal  reason  in  my  mind  was  the 
very  honorable  philosophy  of  an  observation  which  I  heard  many  years 
ago  of  the  late  estimable  Bishop  White,  in  Philadelphia.  His  remark 
was  to  this  efl'ect,  that  such  is  the  character  of  the  American  people,  that 
no  man,  who  takes  care  to  be  always  in  the  right,  can  ever  ultimately  be 
put  down  by  calumny — whatever  may  be  its  temporary  effects.  This  was 
his  answer,  and  his  plea  for  the  licentiousness  of  the  press  in  its  attacks 
upon  individuals.  And  hence  he  inferred  that,  owing  to  the  love  of  justice 
and  fair  play,  which  he  conceived  to  be  a  strong  element  of  the  American 
character,  every  honest  man  can  easily  afford  to  “  live  down  ”  a  calumny. 
This  remark  struck  me  very  much  at  the  time  ;  and  wherever  the  question 
became  merely  personal  to  myself,  I  have  invariably  acted  on  the  prin¬ 
ciple — whilst  my  own  experience,  of  now  nearly  twenty  years,  of  public 
life,  has  only  confirmed  its  soundness  and  its  truth.  These  are  my  reasons 
for  having  allowed  the  calumnies  against  Bishop  Hughes  to  remain  so  long 
uncontradicted ;  whilst  I  never  let  an  opportunity  pass  of  meeting,  and  ex¬ 
posing  and  refuting,  the  misrepresentations  which  were  directed  against 
the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  that  portion  of  our  citizens  to  whom  I 
wished  to  see  extended  the  blessings  of  education. 

It  has  been  a  matter  of  speculation  among  many  in  this  city,  to  solve  the 
motive  for  the  constant,  the  varying,  malignity  of  Mr.  Bennett  against 
Bishop  Hughes.  Some  have  supiJosed  that  he  was  kept  in  bribe  for  the 
purpose ; — others  have  ascribed  it  to  revenge ; — which,  though  strong,  is 
said  to  be  in  slavish  subjection  to  avarice — in  that  man’s  breast.  But  of  all 
whose  opinion  has  reached  me  upon  the  subject,  there  is  not  one  who  be¬ 
lieves  it  to  be  gratuitous.  I  express  no  opinion  on  the  subject  myself  I 
shall  enter  no  abuse  of  this  unfortunate  man  ;  but  as  those  who  are  inclined 
to  believe  that  he  is  actuated  by  revenge,  have  told  me  that  he  ascribes  the 
reception  he  met  with  from  Daniel  O’Connell  to  my  agency,  and  as  1  do  not 
deem  it  necessary  that  even  he  should  be  under  a  mistake  on  that  subject, 
I  will  assign  what  I  look  upon  as  the  key  of  explanation  to  the  somewliat 
rude  treatment  which  he  received  in  a  land  celebrated  for  its  hospitality, 
and  where  every  decent  man,  from  America  esjjecially,  is  received  with  a 
full  heart  of  Irish  welcome.  I  will  make  a  little  episode  in  this  communi¬ 
cation,  but  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  fact,  at  least,  will  lie  interesting  not 
only  to  the  public  in  America,  but  also  in  Great  Britain,  and  all  Europe. 
Four  years  ago  I  was  introduced  to  Daniel  O’Connell,  in  London.  This 
was  at  my  own  request,  for  I  wished,  having  then  the  opportunity,  to  see  a 
man  of  whom  there  was  more  of  good  and  evil  said  than  of  any  other  in 


LETTER  TO  MAYOR  HARPER. 


457 


klie  world.  A  few  minutes  after  I  sat  down,  and  whilst  the  conversation 
was  on  mere  c  )mmon-place  topics,  a  silence  ensued  on  his  part,  sufficiently 
long  to  make  me  think  that  I  ought  to  retire.  I  observed  his  eyes  swim¬ 
ming  in  tears.  This  astonished  me  still  more,  and  I  was  about  to  with¬ 
draw,  when  he  addressed  me ;  as  nearly  as  I  can  remember,  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  words — but  in  a  voice  which,  though  almost  stifled  with  grief,  yet 
sounded  as  the  softest  and  tenderest  that  ever  struck  upon  my  ears :  “  Dr. 
Hughes,  I  have  been  forty  years  a  public  man — I  have  been  engaged  in 
political  strife  with  men  of  every  jrarty  and  of  every  creed — I  am,  by  all 
odds,  the  best  abused  man  in  the  world,  but  through  all  this  time  neither 
Tories,  nor  Whigs,  nor  even  Orangemen  themselves,  ever  made  an  attack 
on  the  mother  of  my  children.  She  was  mild  and  gentle;  she  was  meek 
and  charitable.  She  was  loved  and  respected  by  friend  and  foe.  My 
bitterest  enemies  would  have  spared  me,  if  they  could  not  reach  me,  with¬ 
out  hurting  the  lamb  that  slept  in  my  bosom.  The  only  attack  that  ever 
was  made  on  Mrs.  O’Connell,  came  from  your  side  of  the  water  and  from 
your  city,  in  a  paper  called  the  ‘  New  Yorlc  Morning  HerakV  Some  mis¬ 
taken  friend,  I  suppose,  thought  to  do  me  a  service  by  sending  me  the 
paper.  It  reached  me  just  after  Mrs.  O’Connell’s  death.  Of  course,  the 
poisoned  arrow  missed  the  gentle  heart  for  which  it  was  intended,  but  it 
reached  and  rested  in  mine.”  Mr.  Bennett  was  not  married  when  he  wrote 
this  attack  on  the  amiable  wife  and  mother ;  but  those  who  are  husbands 
and  flithers  can  best  judge,  whether  Mr.  O’Connell’s  reception  of  him  at  the 
Corn  Exchange  was  merited  or  not.  Whether  O’Connell’s  is  the  only  heart 
that  has  been  wounded,  by  the  “  poisoned  arrow  ”  aimed  at  the  domestic 
peace  of  mankind,  from  the  same  quarter,  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  say. 
But,  at  all  events,  I  think  this  will  satisfy  Bennett,  that  I,  at  least,  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  kind  of  reception  he  met  with  in  Dublin.  What 
the  motive,  then,  of  his  hostility  towards  me  is,  I  am  of  course  still  at  a 
loss  to  comprehend  ;  but  in  truth  it  has  given  me  very  little  uneasiness.  In 
the  hypothesis  that  he  has  been  bribed  to  abuse  me,  I  jrresume  that  a  coun¬ 
ter-bribe  would  at  once  double  his  profits,  diminish  his  labor,  and  secure 
his  silence;  but  I  cannot  afford  it,  and  even  if  I  could,  it  should  not  be 
given.  Now,  however,  I  am  going  to  meet  Mr.  James  Gordon  Bennett,  not 
in  abuse,  but  as  my  accusw,  and  with  Mr.  Bennett  as  my  first  accuser,  I  as¬ 
sociate  Colonel  William  Stone  as  my  second.  Let  these,  by  name,  represent 
the  whole  class  of  editors,  orators,  and  Rev.  Divines  who  have  assailed 
me,  and  now  I  am  prepared  to  meet  them  all. 

Either  Bishop  Hughes  has  entered  into  a  collusion  as  a  i)olitician,  with 
political  agents,  or  he  has  not. 

Either  he  has  driven  or  attempted  to  drive  the  Bible  from  the  common 
schools  of  New  York,  or  he  has  not. 

Either  he  has  organized  a  political  party  in  New  York — or  he  has  not. 

Either  has  blackened,  or  required  to  be  blackened,  the  public  school¬ 
books  of  New  York,  or  he  has  not. 

Finally,  either  he  has  done  actions  and  expressed  sentiments  unworthy 
of  a  Christian  bishop,  and  an  American  citizen,  or  he  has  not. 

These  are  propositions  which  the  plainest  capacity  is  competent  to  un¬ 
derstand.  And,  now,  taking  Bislioj^  White’s  estimate  of  the  American 
character,  I  am  about  to  constitute  the  American  peojile,  Whigs,  Democrats, 
Catholics,  Protestants,  Jews,  Gentiles,  citizens  both  of  native  and  foreign 
birth,  as  judges  between  James  Gordon  Bennett,  and  Colonel  William  L. 
Stone,  on  the  one  side,  and  Bishop  Hughes  on  the  other.  I  shall  not  an¬ 
ticipate  the  judgment  of  the  public.  I  shall  merely  say  that  I  believe  it 
v/ill  be  just,  and  jm-'tice  is  all  that  I  require.  Happily  the  dispute  is  one  in 
which  sophistry  and  misrepresentation  cannot  find  place.  It  is  a  question 


458 


AECIIBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  facts,  and  against  facts,  reasoning  is  useless.  Eveiy  fact,  to  be  susceptible 
of  proof,  requires  witnesses  who  can  bear  testimony  to  its  truth.  AVherevei 
there  are  witnesses  in  a  case,  the  thing  testified  to  can  be  established  as 
having  occurred  at  some  given  time  and  place.  In  a  court  of  justice,  if  a 
man  swore  that  he  witnessed  the  occurrence  of  a  fact,  and  yet  could  not 
tell  either  the  time  or  the  place  of  the  occurrence,  he  would  be  set  aside 
either  as  perjuring  himself,  or  as  being  deranged.  Let  my  case  then  be 
judged  by  these  established  rules  of  common  and  public  justice.  I  will 
state  my  own  conduct,  as  far  as  it  has  any  bearing  on  the  case,  in  a  series 
of  pro])ositions  and  in  the  form  of  pacts. 

1st  Proposition. — I  have  never,  in  my  life,  done  an  action,  or  uttered  a 
sentiment,  tending  to  abridge  any  human  being  of  all  or  any  of  the  rights 
of  conscience  which  I  claim  to  enjoy  myself  under  the  American  Consti¬ 
tution. 

2d.— I  have  never  asked  nor  wished  that  any  denomination  should  be 
deprived  of  the  Bible,  or  such  version  of  the  Bible  as  that  denomination 
conscientiously  approved,  in  our  Common  or  Public  Schools. 

3d.— I  have  never  entered  into  intrigue  or  collusion  with  any  ijolitical 
party  or  individual ;  and  no  political  party  or  individual  ever  approached 
me  with  so  insulting  a  proposition. 

4th.— I  have  never  requested  or  authorized  the  “  blackening  of  the  public 
school  books”  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

5th. — In  all  my  public  life  in  New  York,  I  have  done  no  action,  uttered 
no  sentiment,  unworthy  of  a  Christian  Bishop  and  an  American  citizen. 

These  are  all  negative  propositions  ;  and  1  am  not  bound  to  prove  a  neg¬ 
ative  ;  but  I  assert  these  propositions  as/acfo,  and  if  they  are  not  true,  James 
Gordon  Bennett,  Wm.  L.  Stone,  and  the  other  assailants  of  my  character, 
must  be  in  possession  of  the  positive  facts  which  prove  them  false.  Let 
them  state  the  time,  and  place,  where  the  facts  which  prove  them  false 
occurred ;  and  the  witnesses  of  those  facts — and  then,  I  join  issue,  and 
])ledge  myself  to  refute  their  witnesses.  I  shall  now  continue  my  proposi¬ 
tions,  not  in  the  negatme^  but  in  the  affirmative  form. 

6th  Proposition. — I  have  always  contended  for  the  right  of  conscience, 
for  all  men  as  universally  as  they  are  recognized  in  the  American  Consti¬ 
tution. 

7th. — I  have  always  preached  that  every  denomination — Jews,  Chris¬ 
tians,  Catholics,  Protestants,  of  every  sect  and  shade — were  all  entitled  to 
the  entire  enjoyment  of  the  freedom  of  conscience,  without  let  or  hindrance 
from  any  other  denomination,  or  set  of  denominations,  no  matter  how  small 
their  number,  or  how  unpopular  the  doctrines  they  i^rofessed. 

8th. — I  have  always  preached,  both  jjublicly  and  privately,  the  Christian 
obligation  of  peace  and  good  will  towards  men^  even  when  they  hate  and 
persecute  us. 

9th. — I  have  been  accustomed  to  pray  publicly,  in  our  churches,  for  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  United  States ;  for  the  welfare  of  my  fellow- 
citizens  of  all  denominations,  and  without  distinction  ;  whilst  James  Gor¬ 
don  Bennett  and  Wm.  L.  Stone  were,  from  day  to  day,  exciting  the  hatred 
of  my  fellow-citizens  against  me,  and,  so  far,  attempting  to  deprive  me  of 
the  protection  of  my  country. 

These  aflirmative  propositions  I  am  bound  and  prepared  to  jrrove,  if  Mr. 
Bennett  and  Ccl.  Stone  deny  them.  All  the  propositions  are  facts,  and 
are  to  be  overthrown,  if  assailed  at  all,  not  by  sophistry  or  argument,  but 
by  other  facts,  with  wntnesses,  which  will  prove  them  untrue.  Now,  there¬ 
fore,  James  Gordon  Bennett,  Wm.  L.  Stone,  and  ye  other  deceivers  of  the 
public,  stand  forth  and  meet  Bishop  Hughes.  But,  then,  come  forth  in  no 
quibbling  capacity ;  come  forth  as  honest  men,  as  true  American  citizens, 


LETTEE  TO  MATOE  HAEPEE. 


459 


with  truth  in  your  hearts,  and  candor  on  your  lips.  I  know  you  can  write 
well — and  can  multiply  words  and  misrepresent  truth  :  this  is.  not  the 
thing  that  will  serve  you  now.  Come  forth  with  your  pacts.  Bishop 
Hughes  places  himself  in  the  simple  panoply  of  an  honest  man,  before  the 
American  people.  He  asks  not  favor — hut  he  simply  asks,  whether  the 
opinion  of  Bishop  White  is  tri;e,  that  with  the  American  peoi)le  no  man 
can  be  put  down  by  calumny.  Bring,  therefore,  your  facts  to  disprove  the 
foregoing  negative  projoositions.  Bishop  Hughes  pledges  himself  to  prove 
those  that  are  affirmative,  if  you,  or  any  decent  man,  with  his  signature 
will  deny  them. 

You  may,  indeed,  say  that  what  Bishop  Hughes  found  it  his  duty  to  do, 
produced,  at  the  time,  distm'hance  among  politicians;  you  may  pretend 
that,  therefore,  Bishoj)  Hughes  is  a  politician.  If  you  think  so,  it  only 
proves  that  you  are  bad  logicians.  As  well  might  you  say  that  the  man 
who  has  a  purse  is  morally  guilty  of  the  crime  of  robbery  which  deprives 
him  of  it,  on  the  plea  that  if  he  had  either  stayed  at  home  or  gone  out 
with  empty  pockets,  the  robbery  would  not  have  taken  place.  I  never 
W’as,  I  never  will  be,  a  politician.  I  am  the  pastor  of  a  Christian  ilock  ;  I 
am  a  citizen  of  a  country  whose  proudest  boast  is,  that  it  has  made  the 
civil  and  religious  rights  of  all  its  citizens  equal.  As  a  jjastor,  I  was  bound 
to  see  that  the  religious  rights  of  my  flock  should  not  be  filched  away  from 
them,  under  pretext  of  education,  and  against  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
my  country.  I  attended  the  meetings  in  reference  to  that  sul)ject,  not  as  a 
politician,  but  to  exclude  men  of  that  class  from  turning  a  simple  question 
into  a  base  object.  When,  in  the  prosecution  of  that  purpose,  no  alterna¬ 
tive  was  left  to  the  people  long  deprived  of  the  rights  of  education  but  to 
vote  for  candidates  bound  by  pleclges  to  deny  them  justice,  and  even  re¬ 
fuse  them  a  hearing — and  this  on  the  very  eve  of  the  election — I  urged 
them,  with  all  the  powers  of  my  mind  and  heart,  to  repel  the  disgusting 
indignity  of  this  stratagem.  I  told  them  to  cut  their  w'ay  through  this 
circle  of  fire,  with  which  the  opponents  of  the  rights  of  education  narrow¬ 
mindedly  and  ungenerously  surrounded  them.  I  told  them  that  they 
W’ould  be  signing  and  sealing  their  own  degradation  if  they  voted  for  men 
pledged  to  refuse  them  the  chance  of  justice.  But  then  no  party — no  indi¬ 
vidual  of  any  party — had  anything  to  do  with  the  2)rompting  of  this  ad¬ 
vice,  but  myself.  It  sprang  from  my  own  innate  sense  of  duty — my  own 
conception  of  the  rights  of  constituency  in  a  free  government. 

Even  if  it  had  been  political,  I  should  have  done  nothing  more  than  is 
dene  by  clergymen  of  other  denominations  without  exciting  the  least  cen¬ 
sure  or  suiqjrise.  Let  a  stranger  drop  in,  accidentally,  to  some  of  our  re¬ 
ligious  conventions,  composed  almost  entirely  of  clergymen,  and,  listening 
for  an  hour  to  the  debates,  he  will  be  tempted  to  imagine  them  a  commit¬ 
tee  of  Congress  deliberating  upon  the  deepest  and  most  perplexing  topics 
of  a  political  character,  involving  even  the  integrity  of  the  country.  Let 
him  sit  beneath  one  of  our  pulpits,  and,  with  the  omission  of  a  few  party 
names,  he  will  suppose  himself  listening  to  some  political  leader,  whose 
solicitude  for  the  w'elfare  of  the  country  is  so  great  that  the  virtues  of  the 
Christian  religion,  and  man’s  relations  towards  God  and  eternity,  are  for¬ 
gotten  in  the  higher  importance  of  promoting  the  interests  of  the  nation. 
If  he  turn  his  steps  in  another  direction,  he  will  imagine  that  religion, 
driven  from  the  pulpits,  has  fled  to  the  political  rostrum  for  protection  ; 
and  he  will  see  the  Holy  Bible  itself  erected,  or,  I  should  say,  rather,  de¬ 
graded  into  a  party  ensign  !  These  things  are  going  on  in  the  midst  of  us 
and  around  us.  I  do  not  take  upon  me  to  say  whether  these  things  are 
right  or  wrong ;  but  I  do  say  that  if  these  things  are  lawful  in  the  minis¬ 
ters  of  one  denomination,  I,  as  the  minister  of  another,  ought  to  stand  uc* 


460 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


quilled  of  blame  in  merely  defending  the  rights  of  conscience  and  of  edu- 
cation,  by  means  which  the  law’s  of  God  sanction,  w’hich  the  law’s  of  my 
country  authorize  and  aiDprove.  These  things,  sir,  I  have  written  Avhilst 
under  the  threat  of  assassination.  These  things  are  true.  They  may  as¬ 
sail  Bishop  Hughes  in  the  public  press ;  they  may  assail  him  in  the  pulpit ; 
they  may  assail  him  in  the  public  assembly  ;  they  may  proscribe  and  per¬ 
secute  him  as  they  please :  but  neither  living  nor  dead,  I  trust,  w’ill 
they  l)e  able  to  fix  upon  his  name  the  stigma  of  one  act,  or  of  one  sen¬ 
timent  unw'orthy  of  w'hat  he  claims  to  be, — a  minister  of  the  Christian  and 
Catholic  religion,  and  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  In  entering  upon  the 
discussion  of  education,  I  supjDOsed  that  I  should  be  supported  by  the 
countenance  of  all  good  men,  as  the  friend  of  my  country.  You  said  that 
the  Catholics,  particularly  those  of  Irish  birth,  w’erc  ignorant,  and,  as  a 
consequence  of  ignorance,  disorderly.  I  wish  them  to  become  educated, 
and  as  a  consequence,  orderly.  Was  this  w’rong?  Do  you  say  they  have 
no  right  to  be  educated  ?  The  laws  have  more  honorably  thought,  and 
more  wisely,  too,  decided  that  they  have  a  right.  Do  you  say  that  in  be¬ 
ing  educated  they  must  give  up  their  religious  convictions  ?  The  laws 
sanction  no  such  dangerous  princqjle. 

A  few  w’ords  more  in  reference  to  those  who  have  so  long  and  unjustly 
assailed  me,  and  I  shall  have  done.  And  first  of  all,  I  can  say  w’ith  truth, 
that  there  is  not  an  unforgiving  thought  in  my  mind  in  reference  to  any 
of  them.  Many  of  them  may  have  been  deceived ;  and,  although,  in  the 
melancholy  events  which  have  occurred,  an  awful  responsibility  rests  ujjon 
those  w’ho  have  been  guilty  of  the  deception — still  even  them  I  leave  to  the 
merciful  but  just  judgment  of  the  Creator.  Of  them  all  I  have  not  deemed 
it  necessary  to  mention  more  than  two — and  toward  these  I  have  not  an 
unkind  feeling.  But  this  shall  not  prevent  my  saying  what  is  necessary  to 
put  myself  and  them  right  before  the  public.  These  two  are  James  Gor¬ 
don  Bennett  and  Wm.  L.  Stone.  Of  Mr.  Stone  I  have  little  to  say.  It  is 
not  for  me  to  enter  into  any  analysis  of  a  character  so  w’ell  known  as  his, 
and  so  generally  respected.  Neither  shall  I  enquire  into  the  motives 
which  could  have  prompted  him,  through  apparent  zeal  for  his  own  relig¬ 
ion  or  hostility  to  mine,  to  have  put  himself  in  the  company  and  in  the 
position  in  w’hicli  this  letter  exhibits  him. 

Of  Mr.  Bennett  1  have  a  far  different  opinion.  Considering  his  talents, 
his  w  ant  of  principle,  and  the  pow’cr  of  doing  mischief  wdiich  circumstan¬ 
ces  have  placed  within  his  reach,  I  regard  him  as  decidedly  the  most  danger¬ 
ous  man^  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  a  community,  that  I  have  ever  known,  or 
read  of  This  opinion  is  formed  on  grounds  altogether  distinct  from  his 
peculiar  enmity  towuird  myself.  But,  confining  the  proof  of  my  observa¬ 
tion  to  what  has  occurred  within  my  own  knowledge  and  experience,  I 
have  but  to  call  the  reader’s  attention  to  a  few  facts. 

When  the  public  pi’ess  had  recovered  a  little  from  the  shock  produced 
by  his  burlesque  rei^ort,  and  malignant  comment  on  the  occurrence  at  Car- 
roll  Hall,  there  was,  of  course,  that  reaction  w’hich  is  indicative  of  candid 
minds  and  just  feelings.  This  operated  as  a  rebuke  to  the  author  of  the 
deception,  but  he  would  not  be  foiled.  He  then  represented,  th.at  a  large 
portion  of  the  respectable  Catholics  of  New  York  were  unanimous  in  their 
censure  of  my  conduct.  He  fomented  wdiat  was  termed  an  indignation 
meeting,  of  persons  calling  themselves  Catholics — but  who  were  little  known 
in  their  churches,  as  such — j^^rsons  who  affected  to  be  first-rate  Irishmen, 
and  almost  furious  Catholics,  once  or  twice  a  year,  generally  a  week  or  ten 
slays  Isefore  an  election,  in  the  hope  of  receiving  some  contemptible  little 
ofiice  which  might  save  them  from  the  necessity  of  honest  but  honorable 
industry.  During  the  discussion  of  the  School  Question  I,  wdthout  being 


461 


LETTER  TO  MAYOR  HARPER. 

aware  of  it,  had  destroyed  their  influence ;  and  Bennett,  judging  correctly 
of  their  discontent,  thought  to  use  them  for  the  purpose  of  sowing  division 
in  the  flock  committed  to  my  charge.  He  was  foiled  in  tliis,  too.  But 
nothing  daunted,  I  next  discovered  him  in  the  sanctuary  itself — like  the 
serpent  in  Paradise— endeavoring  to  sow  discord  among  my  clergy,  and  to 
seduce  two  of  them,  even  by  name,  into  alienation  from  their  duty  to  God, 
and  towards  'their  bisho^i.  In  this,  too,  he  was  foiled,  and  publicly  re¬ 
buked  from  their  own  pens  for  his  audacity.  I  know  not  what  purposes 
of  revenge  mortification  like  this  may  have  engendered  in  the  mind  of 
such  a  man  as  Mr.  Bennett ;  but  the  public  are  witnesses  of  the  malignity 
with  which  he  has  not  ceased  to  pursue  me  up  to  this  hour.  If  he  were 
even  more  depraved  or  less  despised,  he  would  not  be  so  dangerous ;  but, 
being  without  any  fixed  iirinciple  of  good,  he  occupies  that  ambiguous 
position  which  renders  him  too  contemptible  for  notice,  and  yet  not  suf¬ 
ficiently  so  to  be  below  the  iiower  of  mischief.  If  you  notice  his  slanders, 
and  convict  him  of  them,  people  will  say  that  you  lose  your  labor ;  inas¬ 
much  as  “nobody  believes  what  Bennett  says.”  If  you  do  not,  your 
enemies  will  take  that  up  as  undeniable — asserted  in  the  newspapers — or, 
as  Colonel  Stone  adroitly  exj^ressed  it,  “  taken  from  a  morning  print.” 

Such  is  a  iJortion  of  my  experience  of  the  danger  to  the  community,  from 
the  jDowers  of  sowing  discord  and  producing  evil,  no  less  than  that  of 
winging  the  “  poisonous  arrow”  into  the  hearts  of  families,  jjossessed  by 
Mr.  Bennett.  How  he  has  ever  employed  these  powers,  others,  who  have 
had  similar  experience,  need  not  be  told.  Yet  dangerous  and  degraded  as 
he  is,  I  shall  meet  him  for  once,  if  he  dares  to  give  his  name  in  contradict¬ 
ing  any  one  of  the  above  propositions^  which  I  have  laid  down  as  so  many 
facts.  And  if  he  do  not  dare  to  meet  me  then  I  consign  him  to  a  lower 
depth  of  infamy  than  he  has  yet  reached.  There  is  one  other  matter,  how¬ 
ever,  which  I  cannot  pass  over  in  silence ;  and  it  is  that,  during  the  polit¬ 
ical  excitement,  carried  to  a  high  and  dangerous  pitch,  among  those  who 
have  made  you,  sir.  Mayor  of  New  York,  no  man  was  so  active  in  fanning 
the  embers  of  social  and  civil  discord  into  a  conflagration  of  fury,  as  Mr. 
Bennett.  I  am  not  a  politician ;  but  I  profess  to  know  something  of  the 
laws  as  well  as  the  weakness  and  depravity  of  human  nature,  and  one  of  its 
moral  laws  is,  that  whenever  there  is  a  combination  for  the  purpose  of  de¬ 
nouncing  any  particular  class  of  men,  the  effect  will  be  to  drive  the  assailed 
into  combination  also.  This  was  the  effect  which  I  dreaded,  among  the 
Catholic  people  of  New  York,  whether  of  native  or  foreign  origin.  And 
whilst  I  w’as  laboring  as  I  have  already  described  to  defeat  this  result,  Mr. 
Bennett  was  flinging  among  them,  as  a  firebrand,  the  denunciations  that 
were  uttered  in  the  meetings  of  the  Native  Americans.  Not  only  were 
these  denunciations  against  myself,  but  against  the  Catholic  churches  of 
the  city.  I  remember  the  proceedings  of  one  meeting  in  particular,  as  re¬ 
ported  in  the  “  Herald ;”  I  recollect  distinctly  the  speech  of  one  orator  who 
with  violent  gestures  proclaimed  “  that  there  were  dungeons  under  St. 
Patrklds  Cathedral,  and  that  these  could  he  intended  for  no  other  purpose 
than  the  imprisonment  and  torture  of  the  Protestant  ministers  of  the  city, 
when,  the  Catholics  gained  the  ascendancy."'  I  quote  the  substance,  if  not 
the  very  language  of  the  report.  Since  yom-  election,  I  have  been  told  that 
the  whole  of  this  meeting  and  this  atrocious  language  was  a  fabrication  of 
Bennett’s  own  !  But  how  were  the  Catholics  of  the  city  to  know  this  ? 

You,  sir,  wdio  must  know  something  of  human  nature,  need  not  be 
informed  that  in  all  social  outbreaks,  particularly  of  a  riotous  character, 
the  moral  incendiary  first  fires  the  passion,  and  then,  the  victims  of  those 
inflamed  passiojis  are  prepared  to  apply  the  torch  or  wield  the  murderous 
instrument  against  the  objects  of  their  fury.  Head  again,  if  you  please, 


462 


ARCHBlv'SSOP  HUGHES. 


the  passage  above  quoted,  proceeding  from  a  meeting  of  Native  Americana, 
published  in  30,000  or  30,000  cojries  of  tlie  Herald,  and  cast  forth  on  tlie 
population  of  the  city,  at  a  time  of  extraordinary  excitement  and  deplo- 
ralile  bitterness  of  feeling ;  be  jaleased  to  read  it  again,  I  say,  and  weighing 
these  circumstances,  make  up  your  mind  as  to  the  effects  which  it  was 
calculated,  if  not  intended,  to  jiroduce.  It  was  calculated  to  destroy  social 
coulidence — produce  feelings  of  rage  on  one  side  and  of  revenge  on  the 
other;  and  among  the  least  enlightened  portion  of  the  community  of  all 
sides,  to  produce  that  welling  up  of  bad  passions  which  an  additional  drop 
might  have  caused  to  overflow,  breaking  down  evei-y  barrier,  and  leaving 
onr  fair  city  a  scene  of  desolation,  such  as  perhaps  the  world  has  never  seen 
before.  If  the  American  republicans  held  this  language,  are  they  not  utterly 
inexcusable?  but  if  they  did  not  hold  it,  and  if  it  was  a  fabrication  of  Ben 
nett’s  own  in  their  name,  then,  sir,  have  I  not  said  well,  that  he  is  the  most 
dangerous  man  to  the  peace  of  th.e  community  that  I  have  ever  known  or 
ever  read  of?  If  during  the  crisis  through  which  we  have  passed.,  one  spark 
had  been  produced  from  the  embers  of  strife  which  this  man  was  fanning — if, 
owing  to  the  insults  on  one  side,  and  the  instinct  of  mingled  self-preservation 
and  revenge  on  the  other — a  collision  had  taken  place,  and  all  who  had  been 
inflamed  on  either  side,  feeling  called  upon,  should  rush  to  the  support  of 
their  friend.s,  I  shudder  at  the  contemplation  of  what  might  have  been  the 
consequences. 

Alas!  alas!  sir.  that  men  cannot  be  content  to  worship  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  then’  conscience,  without  preventing  their  fellow  mortals  from 
enjoying  the  same  privilege.  On  the  School  Question,  nothing  more  than  the 
recognized  legal  rights  of  conscience  has  been  claimed  for  the  Catholic  chil¬ 
dren.  These  rights,  the  Catholics  under  the  most  intolerant  governments 
have  never  given  up,  and  nev^er  will  relinquish.  They  have  been  deprived 
of  them  by  intolerant  laws.  If  the  American  people  are  willing  to  enact 
such  laws,  we  shall  submit  to  pains  and  penalties.  We  interfere  with  no 
other  denomination  of  citizens — we  wish  them  all  to  enjoy  the  same  privi¬ 
leges  that  we  claim  for  ourselves.  Is  not  this  the  principle  of  the  American 
government?  Is  it  not  the  pride  and  boast  and  the  glory  of  the  American 
people?  And  if  it  be  all  this,  why  is  it  that  Americans  are  opposed  to  it? 

1,  sir,  am  not  a  man  of  strife  or  contention.  My  disposition  is,  I  trust, 
both  pacific  and  benevolent.  As  a  proof  of  this  I  may  mention  that  I  have 
never  had  a  personal  altercation  with  a  human  being  in  my  life;  that  I  have 
never  had  occasion  to  call  others,  or  to  be  called  myself  before  any  civil 
tribunal  of  the  earth.  It  is  true  that  public  duty  has  not  unfrequently  forced 
upon  me  the  necessity  of  taking  my  stand  in  moral  opposition  to  principles 
which  I  deemed  injurious  and  unjust.  But  even  then,  I  trust  I  have  made 
the  distinction  which  Christian  feeling  suggests  between  the  cause  and  the 
person  of  the  advocate  arrayed  against  me.  And  though  I  have  some¬ 
times  perhaps  been  severe  on  my  opponents,  I  trust  that  it  proceeded  not. 
from  any  malice  in  the  heart;  it  came  on  me  rather  as  a  species  of  intellec¬ 
tual  indignation  at  witnessing  bad  logic  employed  to  defend  worse  bigotry. 

Even  in  this  communication,  I  may  have  done  some  injustice  to  tlie  per¬ 
sons  whose  names  I  have  mentioned.  I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  of  con¬ 
sulting  a  single  document.  What  I  have  said  regarding  myself  rests  upon 
my  own  interior  consciousness;  what  I  have  said  in  the  way  of  opinion, 
must  of  coui'se  rest  upon  the  accuracy  of  my  judgment,  and  mu.st  partake  of 
its  imperlcftions.  But  I  have  stated  some  things  as  facts,  merely  on  the 
strength  of  my  memory,  and  if  these  should  not  be  in  reality  as  I  have 
stated,  then  do  I  willingly  retract  them,  for  I  have  no  disposition  to  do  injus¬ 
tice  to  any  man.  Of  these  statements,  one  is  that  Colonel  Stone  in  quoting 
fron.  Bennett,  suppressed  the  name  of  his  author,  and  instead  cf  it,  put  oa 


LETrER  TO  MAYOR  HARPER. 


463 


(he  plirjise,  “A  Morning  Print.”  Another  is  the  attack  by  this  Mr.  Bennett 
on  i(rs.  Daniel  O’Connel].  This  I  never  saw,  but  have  no  doubt  in  my  own 
mind  of  its  existence  and  of  its  character.  Another  stdl  is  the  fabrication 
of  the  incendiary  speech  by  Bennett,  from  which  a  quotation  has  been  given 
— as  liaving  heen  made  by  the  hiative  Americans.  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  a 
fabrication,  but,- of  course,  the  parties  interested  can  easily  determine  the  fact. 

With  high  respect,  sir,  I  have  the  honor  to  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  HUGHES,  Bisnop  of  Hew  York. 

New  Yor\  May  I7tb,  1844. 


0 


BISHOP  HUGHES’  SECOND  LETTER. 


New  York,  Monday^  May  27,  1844. 

“ In  this  country  all  things  are  affected  or  decided  by  public  opinion,  and  public 
opinion  itself  is  sustained  by  two  opposite  elements— TRUTH  and  FALSEHOOD. 
There  is  nothing  more  powerful  than  FALSEHOOD,  except  TRUTH  alone.  The 
enemies  of  our  claim  were  not  ignorant  of  this,  and  therefore  they  have  crowded 
every  avenue  to  public  opinion  with  MrsKERRESESTATiox  in  reference  to  it.”  [Extract 
from*  Bishop  Hughes’s  Speech  on  the  School  Question,  at  Carroll  Hall,  Oct.  29,  1841. 

To  Col.  Wm.  L.  Stone,  Editor  of  the  Commercial  Advertiser  : 

Sir  — It  may  appear  singular  that  I  should  select  a  quotation 
from  one  of  my  own  speeches,  as  an  introduction  to  the  letter  which 
I  am  about  to  address  you.  But  I  pray  you  not  to  be  alarmed.  I 
may  be  egotistical,  but  you  tvill  be  pleased  to  recollect  that  the  news¬ 
papers  have  been  at  me  a  long  time — that  I  write  necessarily  about 
myself,  so  of  course  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  subject.  Mr.  David 
Hale,  as  the  only  answer  to  my  letter  lately  addressed  to  Mayor 
Harper,  has  discovered  that  I  have  made  reference  to  myself  “  three 
hundred  and  sixty-one  times  ?”  This  same  gentleman  published, 
now  nearly  two  years  ago,  that  “in  one  of  the  Catholic  churches  of 
this  city,  a  Catholic  priest  at  Confession,  condemned  a  young  woman 
for  having  attended  public  worship  with  a  family  whom  she  served, 
to  walk  upon  her  knees  around  the  church,  until  the  blood  issued 
FREELY  FROM  HER  WOUNDS.”  Of  coui’se,  in  Order  to  hold  such  a 
bad  priest  accountable,  I  inquired  for  his  name,  the  name  of  the 
church  to  which  he  belonged,  the  name  of  the  young  woman,  the 
time  and  place  of  the  occurrence — to  all  of  which  inquiries,  Mr. 
David  Hale  had  to  be  mum  !  Still,  he  Avas  sure  it  must  have  been 


464 


ARCIlBISnOP  HUGHES. 


SO  ;  there  could  be  no  mistake  about  it,  and  he  has  never  had  the 
conscience  to  make  either  an  acknowledgement  or  an  apology  for 
this  atrocious  calumny  to  the  present  day.  I  have  therefore  set  him 
down  as  I  expressed  in  my  last  letter,  as  afflicted  with  a  weakness 
or  duplicity  of  moral  vision,  for  the  '•'•effects  or  defects  of  which,  he 
is  perhaps  scarcely  accoimtable.”  But  I  have  never  heard  his  saga¬ 
city  called  in  question  where  the  matter  was  one  of  pure  “  calcula¬ 
tion  and  if  he  says  that  I  have  referred  to  myself  three  hundred 
and  sixty-one  times  in  my  last  letter,  it  may  be  looked  upon  as  cor¬ 
rect.  I  shall  do  probably  as  much  in  this  communication — but  the 
reason  is,  that  I  profess  to  write  about  myself  in  repelling  the  slan¬ 
ders  of  others,  which  would  be  impossible  if  I  could  lose  sight  of 
my  subject. 

I  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  this  letter  to  you,  sir,  as  taking 
the  first  place,  after  Mr.  Bennett,  in  misleading  the  public  by  cir¬ 
culating  the  slanders  just  alluded  to.  I  am  not  surprised  that  at 
your  age,  and  with  your  character  and  respectability,  you  skould 
shrink  from  a  jDartnership  of  responsibility  with  such  a  man  as  Mr. 
Bennett.  But,  sir,  you  should  have  thought  of  this  sooner ;  and 
not  have  joined  with  a  man  like  him  in  a  partnership  of  moral  guilt. 
Mr.  Hale  is  the  only  man  pretending  to  respectability  who  has 
the  courage  to  take  sides  with  him ;  and  the  alliance,  strange  to 
other  minds  as  it  may  appear,  is  quite  natural  to  mine. 

But  before  I  proceed,  I  must  beg  leave  to  express  my  disagree¬ 
ment  with  the  opinion  of  many  respectable  persons,  both  Catholics 
and  Protestants,  to  the  effect  that  Bennett  is  too  low  and  too  scur- 
rillous,  to  deserve  the  notice  wdth  which,  they  are  pleased  to  say,  I 
honor  him.  A  Philadelphia  paper  says  that  I  have  raised  him  to  an 
equality  with  myself,  lliis  would  be  indeed  a  delightful,  if  it  were 
not  a  hopeless  attempt.  On  the  other  hand,  I  trust  there  is  not  the 
least  danger  of  my  sinking  to  his  degraded  level.  As  a  citizen  of 
tlie  United  States,  if  he  he  one^  I  claim  no  superiority  over  Mr.  Ben¬ 
nett.  As  to  his  moral  position,  I  have  but  to  repeat  the  opinion 
which  I  have  already  expressed,  that  “  if  he  were  more  depraved, 
or  less  despised,  he  would  not  be  so  dangerous  ;  but  being  without 
any  fixed  principle  of  good,  he  occupies  that  ambiguous  position 
which  renders  him,  as  men  say,  too  contemptible  for  notice,  and  yet 
not  sufticiently  so  to  be  below  the  power  of  mischief.”  I  notice  him, 
therefore,  not  as  being  capable  of  good,  but  as  being  capable  and 
disposed  to  evil.  That  he  should  have  power  to  do  even  mischief, 
is  perhaps  the  reproach  of  the  community ;  and  I  would  appeal  to 
that  community  to  join  me  in  compelling  him  to  rise  for  an  effort 
for  good,  against  the  adverse  instincts  of  his  nature,  or  else,  if  this 
should  be  impossible,  to  sink  him  below  the  capacity  of  accomplish¬ 
ing  his  wickedness. 

This,  sir,  may  seem  to  be  harsh  language,  but  I  throw  myself  on 
the  indulgence  of  the  reader,  with  the  simple  request  that  he  will 
not  pronounce  it  unmerited  until  he  shall  have  closed  the  perusal  of 
this  letter.  I  have  introduced  these  remarks  here,  simply  to  exhibit 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


465 


the  reasons  in  general  why  I  cannot  agree  in  opinion  with  many  ex¬ 
cellent  friends,  who  say  that  Mr.  Bennett  is  beneath  my  notice.  It 
Avill  appear  in  the  sequel,  that  he  has  continued  to  assail  me  with  an 
industry  and  a  malignity  which,  considering  the  man,  can  be  ac¬ 
counted  for  only  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  prompted  by  either 
of  his  predominant  passions — avarice  or  revenge.  If  indeed  there  have 
been  found  persons  toeah  or  wicked  enough  to  gratify  the  former  by 
bribing  him  to  abuse  me,  it  only  proves  that  they  at  least  have  not 
considered  him  beneath  notice.  With  regard  to  the  latter,  the 
only  pretext  that  I  have  ever  heard  alleged  for  it,  would  be  the 
treatment  which  he  received  from  Mr.  O’Connell,  which  I  have 
been  told  he  ascribed  to  my  procurement.  In  his  pretented  reply  to 
my  letter  he  characterises  that  treatment  as  “  brutal.”  I  agree  with 
him  in  this  application  of  language,  but  the  brutality  must  be  found 
in  the  object,  not  the  subject  of  that  treatment.  When  a  man  tramples 
on  the  decency  of  humanity,  not  to  say  Christian  courtesy,  he  is 
metaphorically  described  as  a  “  brute.”  Bennett  so  trampled  on  the 
decencies  of  humanity  when  he  wrote  the  attack  on  Mrs.  O’Connell ; 
when  he  represented  an  amiable,  accomplished  and  aged  Christian 
lady  as  constituting  the  domestic  head  and  centre  for  six  of  her 
husband’s  concubines  !  When  the  attack  reached  that  husband, 
whilst  he  stood  over  the  new-made  grave  of  that  wdfe,  bedewing 
it  with  his  tears,  and  when  afterwards  this  “  brute  ”  had  the 
assurance  to  obtrude  himself  on  the  notice  of  that  husband,  in  a 
public  meeting,  what  other  treatment  except  “  brutal  ”  could  he 
expect  or  deserve  ?  True,  now  that  the  infamy  of  his  conduct  re¬ 
coils  upon  him,  he  attempts  to  throw  the  blame  on  others.  This 
subterfuge,  even  were  it  true,  does  not  exonerate  him  ;  for  it  would 
have  been  made  immediately  after  he  discovered  the  assault,  if  he 
were  not  in  reality  what  O’Connell  rightly  took  him  to  be.  But  this 
shall  be  treated  of  in  its  proper  place. 

In  the  mean  time  I  laid  down  in  my  letter  to  Mayor  Harper,  nine 
propositions,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  slanders  circulated  in  the 
Herald.,  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  and  other  papers,  on  my  own  con¬ 
duct  and  character.  Read  them  over,  I  pray  you,  and  answ’er  me 
Avhether  the  man  of  whom  those  propositions  are  true,  is  not  in  a 
position  to  hurl  a  dignified  and  proud  defiance  at  all  assailants  of 
his  reputation.  Bennett  has  read  them,  and  he  has  not  dared  to 
deny  the  truth  of  one  of  them.  I  wish  you  to  read  them,  sir  ;  but 
I  perceive  by  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  just  handed  me,  of  this  date, 
27th  of  May,  that  you  are  indisposed.  I  regret  this,  fori  have  no 
feelings  on  the  subject  but  those  of  kindness.  ISTeither  shall  I 
])ress  those  points  in  which  I  have  special  right  to  complain  of 
yourself,  until  the  period,  which  I  trust  is  not  far  distant,  when 
you  will  be  able  to  resume  your  editorial  duties,  and  when  I 
shall  be  prepared  to  hold  you  accountable  for  the  public  and 
injurious  use  you  have  made  of  my  name.  But,  whilst  I  shall 
touch  lightly  upon  subjects  in  which  you  are  involved,  in  reference 
to  ray  character  and  conduct,  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  alter 
30 


466 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


a  syllable  of  what  I  have  written,  nor  to  change  the  form  of  my 
letter  by  omitting  yonr  name,  when  I  consider  the  nnscrupulons  nse 
and  abuse  of  mine,  which  is  to  be  found  in  your  columns.  I  hold 
my  name  is  as  sacred  as  yours  ;  but  beyond  this,  I  shall  reserve  the 
principal  portion  of  what  I  have  to  say  until,  which  I  hope  may  be 
soon,  you  will  be  in  a  position  to  answer  for  yourself. 

Mr.  Bennett  has  passed  over  in  silence — no  thanks  to  him  for  so 
doing — all  the  propositions  respecting  myself,  which,  if  true,  as  I 
contend  they  are,  proves  that  w'hat  he  and  others  have  said  against 
me,  is  sheer  falsehood  and  slander.  But,  passing  over  these,  he  has 
charged  me  with  two  subordinate  matters  which  I  shall  now  dispose 
of.  The  first  is  my  reference  to  an  amiable  and  talented  lady,  Avho 
will  dc  me  the  justice  to  remember  that  I  did  not  make  any  mention 
of  her  name.  I  would  not  willingly  offend  against  the  rules  of  gal¬ 
lantry  or  good  breeding.  I  applied  an  epithet,  which  I  now  regret 
exceedingly — not  that  I  feel  that  I  was  unwarranted  in  applying  it, 
but,  because  I  could  not  then  foresee  that  the  lachete  of  one  of  her 
bad  friends  could  have  been  so  great  that  he  would  publish  her 
honored  name,  as  a  shield  for  the  protection  of  his  own  guilty  head. 
My  allusion  was  intended  for  the  eye  of  the  lady  herself,  but  not 
for  the  notoriety  which  this  bad  friend  has  since  given  it.  In  truth, 
I  supposed  that  the  allusion  would  be  understood  by  few,  if  any, 
besides  herself.  We  have  certainly  seen  the  writings  even  of  ladies 
severely  criticised.  But  I  am  not  a  reviewer  by  profession.  And 
if  I  alluded  in  a  seemingly  harsh  manner  to  these  wndtings,  I  make 
bold  to  say  that  the  lady  herself  after  a  proper  explanation,  will  do 
me  the  justice  to  acknowledge,  that  if  I  have  even  merited  blame 
for  what  I  have  said,  it  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  kind 
feelings  that  may  be  inferred  from  my  silence  in  regard  to  Avhat  I 
have  suppressed.  But  even  so,  I  regret  that  her  feelings  should 
have  been  pained,  and  declare  that  if  I  had  thought  that  of  the  few 
w^ho  might  understand  the  allusion,  there  could  have  been  one  base 
enough  to  ])ublish  her  name  in  connexion  with  it,  it  should  never 
have  been  uttered  by  me.  Still,  I  apologise  to  her,  and  express  my 
regret  that  anything  I  have  ever  written  should  have  given  the  least 
pain  to  one  who  for  talents,  benevolence,  purity  of  character  and 
amiability,  is  justly  regarded  as  an  honor  and  ornament  to  her 
sex. 

The  other  small  matter,  on  which  a  point  has  been  raised  by 
Bennett,  is  in  reference  to  my  speech  at  Carroll  Hall.  He  says  in 
his  paper  of  Saturday  that  this  speech  is  word  for  word  the  same 
as  that  published  in  the  Freeman's  Journal,  and  drawing  his  con¬ 
clusion  from  this  assertion  of  his  own,  he  charges  upon  me  that  I 
am  guilty  of  “  falsehood.” 

Tills  is  impossible,  for  at  the  conclusion  of  my  letter  I  stated,  that 
in  penning  it  I  had  not  a  single  document  before  me,  and  conscious¬ 
ness,  judgment,  and  memory  were  all  I  had  to  dejiend  upon.  And 
knowing  that  the  two  latter  of  these  might  betray  me  into  a  mis¬ 
take,  I  took  the  precaution  which  I  owed  to  Christian  feeling  and 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


467 


common  candor,  to  state,  that  if  in  any  matter  of  fact  I  was  mis¬ 
taken,  I  retracted  my  words  t>y  anticipation.  After  such  a  declaration, 
no  man,  except  Bennett,  even  if  I.  had  been  mistaken  on  some  point, 
would  accuse  me  of  falsehood.  This  is  the  only  case  in  which  even 
Bennett  questions  my  accuracy  or  my  veracity.  If  Avhat  he  says 
were  true,  Avith  such  a  precaution  on  my  part,  it  could  be  but  of 
little  service  to  him. 

But  it  is  not  true.  The  report  in  the  Herald^  and  the  report  in 
the  Freeman'' s  Jovrnal2iVQ  not  \KOY({  word  the  same.  This  is  a 
fact.  And  with  facts,  even  Bennett  ought  to  knoAV,  at  this  time, 
that  reasoning,  much  less  assertion,  is  perfectly  useless.  If,  there¬ 
fore,  I  convict  Bennett  of  attempting  to  deceive  on  this  point,  I  Avill 
surprise  nobody.  Still,  as  I  have  appealed  to  the  justice  of  public 
opinion,  I  shall  not  presume  to  stand  before  that  tribunal  Avith  eA'en 
this  imputation.  To  put  this  matter  right,  it  is  sutficidnt  to  say  that 
the  quotation  at  the  head  of  this  letter  is  found  in  the  report  of  my 
speech  at  Carroll  Hall,  in  the  Freeman’’ s  Journal,  and  is  not  found  in 
Bennett’s  report  of  the  same.  Therefore,  Avhen  Bennett  says  that 
the  two  reports  are  “  Avord  for  word  ”  the  same,  it  only  proves  that 
he  Avas  accomplishing  a  falsehood  and  kncAV  it.  ,  This  falsehood  he 
repeats  six  times  ;  still,  as  the  list  Avill  be  sufficiently  long,  we  shall 
count  it  but  as  one.  To  Avhat  extent  it  is  a  falsehood,  may  be 
inferred  fi'om  the  folloAving  extracts  of  my  speech  at  Carroll  Hall, 
as  reported  in  the  Freemaii’s  Journal.  I  quote  them  not  merely  for 
this  purpose,  but  also  to  refute  in  so  much  the  Avhole  body  of  slanders 
that  liaA^e  been  circulated  by  all  the  editors,  orators,  and  clergymen, 
who,  taking  Bennett  for  their  leader,  have  almost  exceeded  him  in 
the  perversion  of  the  truth.  The  Avhole  speech  may  be  read  in  the 
Freeman’’ s  Journal,  extra,  of  October  30.  And  the  perusal  of  it  will 
convince  any  man  who  can  read — first,  there  is  not  a  Avord  of  appeal 
to  religious  or  sectarian  prejudices — second,  that  there  is  not  a  Avord 
of  politics,  except  in  so  ffir  as  candidates  had  arrayed  themselves  in 
opposition  to  the  equal  rights  of  the  people — third,  that  the  purpose 
of  that  speech  was  not  to  organize  a  party,  but  to  lay  doAvn  and 
develope  a  principle.  These  propositions  Avill  be  established  by  the 
following  passages  of  that  speech. 

“  In  this  country  all  things  are  affected  or  decided  by  public 
opinion,  and  public  opinion  itself  is  sustained  by  tAvo  opposite 
elements — truth  and  ffilsehood.  There  is  nothing  more  poAverful 
than  falsehood,  except  truth  alone.  The  enemies  of  our  claim  Avere 
not  ignorant  of  this,  and  therefore  they  have  croAvded  every  avenue 
to  pu'blic  opinion  with  misrepresentations  in  reference  to  our 
claim. 

“  It  is  therefore  necessary  for  us  to  haAm  recourse  to  the  truth 
AAffiich  they  suppress  or  disguise.  We  do  not  ask  for  sectarian  schools. 
We  do  not  ask  that  any  'portion  of  the  public  money  should  be  confided 
to  us  for  the  purpiose  of  teaching  our  religion  at  the  public  expense — 
such  a  demand  would  be  absurd,  and  would  richly  merit  the  rebuke 

WHICH  IT  COULD  NOT  ESCAPE. 


468 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


“  Ill  the  public  sclutols  which  were  established  according  to  the 
system  now  in  force,  our  children  had  to  study  books  which  we 
could  not  approve.  Religious  exercises  were  used  which  we  did 
recognise,  and  our  children  were  compelled  to  take  part  in  them. 
Then  we  withdrew  them  from  the  schools  and  taught  them  with  our 
own  means.  We  do  not  xoant  money  fx'om  the  School  Fund — all  toe 
desire  is  that  it  he  administered  in  such  a  way  as  to  'promote  the  education 
of  all.  Now  the  Public  School  Society  has  introduced  just  so  much 
of  religious  and  sectarian  teaching  as  it  pleased  them  in  the  plentitude 
of  their  irresponsible  character  to  impart.  They  professed  to  exclude 
religion  and  yet  they  introduced  so  much  in  quantity  as  they  thought 
proper,  and  of  such  a  quality  as  violated  our  religious  rights.  If  our 
children  cannot  receive  education  without  having  their  religious 
faith  and  feelings  modeled  by  the  Public  School  Society,  then  they 
cannot  receive  it  under  the  auspices  of  that  institution,  and  if  for 
those  reasons  they  cannot  receive  it  under  the  auspices  of  that  institu¬ 
tion,  it  is  tyranny  to  tax  them  for  its  support.  We  do  not  ask  the 
introduction  of  religious  teaching 'in  any  public  school,  but  we  con¬ 
tend  that  if  such  religious  influences  he  brought  to  bear  on  the  business 
of  education^  it  shall  be.,  so  fur  as  our  children  a, re  concerned.,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  religious  belief  of  their  parents  and  families^ 

“  But  I  call  upon  you  to  resist  this  public  school  system  whether 
you  are  sustained  by  public  men  or  not. 

“  You  are  called  upon  to  joist  with  your  oppressors.,  and  they  leave 
you  NO  ALTERNATIVE  in  Voting.  It  may  appear  uncommon — it  may 
seem  inconsistent  with  my  character — that  I  should  thus  take  an 
interest  in  this  matter ;  and  I  should  not  were  it  not  a  subject  of 
extraordinary  import.  But  there  has  been  an  invasion  of  your 
religious  rights,  and  as  the  spiritual  guardian  of  those  now  before 
me,  I  am  bound  to  help  their  cause.  If  you  are  taxed  you  must  he 
protected.  Were  the  tax  so  imposed  that  each  denomination  might 
receive  the  benefit  of  its  own  quota,  the  case  would  be  fair.  We 
are  willing  to  have  any  system  that  operates  equally  ;  but  we  will 
never  submit  to  a  direct  violation  of  our  rights,  and  an  appropriation 
of  the  school  fund  in  such  a  manner  that  we  may  not  participate  in 
its  benefits. 

*  *  *** 

“  Experience  tells  us  that  to  all  great  questions  agitated  in  this 
country,  there  are  two  sides  ;  and  in  the  history  of  this  one  we  have 
evidence  of  the  fact.  I  do  not  consider  the  question  as  it  regards 
parties  or  men.  I  only  speak  for  and  advocate  ihQ  f  reedom  of  educa¬ 
tion.,  and  the  men  who  stand  up  for  it.  I  appear  as  the  friend  of 
him  who  would  give  justice  to  all  classes.” 

These  extracts  confirm  the  truth  of  what  has  already  been  said, 
that  it  was  not  until  after  the  misrepresentation  and  bigotry  of  a 
portion  of  the  press  had  bound  the  representatives  of  the  people  to 
deny  even  a  coxisideration  of  their  claims  to  the  friends  of  general 
education  that  they  took  up  the  only  alternative  consistent  ivith 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


4G9* 


honor  and  a  sense  of  right.  But  in  all  this  there  is  no  appeal  to 
sectarianism — there  is  no  ap^Deal  to  nationality — there  is  no  expression 
of  denunciation  or  bitterness  ;  in  a  word,  there  is  nothing  but  the 
calm,  rational  development  of  a  great  constitutional  right,  happily 
secured  equally  to  all  the  people.  If  you  make  a  public  issue  with 
any  other  denomination  of  Christians — for  instance,  the  Methodists 
or  Presbyterians — for  the  purpose  of  dei:)riving  them,  as  such,  of  a 
constitutional  right,  they  will  naturally  and  necessarily  oppose  the 
effort  by  constitutional  means. 

If  you  attempt  to  hem  them  in,  in  such  a  manner  that  they  can¬ 
not  have  a  chance  for  voting,  except  by  voting  for  persons  pledged 
to  indict  upon  them  the  very  injury  they  complain  of,  their  right  to 
complaint  will  cease,  if  they  co-ojiei’ate  with  you  for  that  purpose. 
This  was  the  principle  which  I  develoiDed  in  my  speech  at  Carroll 
Hall,  as  may  be  seen  by  another  extract  still. 

‘fThey  say  that  w'e  want  a  portion  of  the  school  fund  for  sec¬ 
tarian  purposes — to  apply  it  to  the  support  and  advancement  of  our 
religion.  This  we  deny  now,  as  we  have  heretofore.  We  have 
denied  it  odicially  and  under  their  own  observation.  And  were  they 
careful  or  solicitous  for  the  truth  of  their  statements  they  would  not 
have  made  the  assertion.  In  this  community,  all  religious  denomina¬ 
tions  are  supposed  to  he  equal.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  predominant 
religion^  and  the  smallest  minority  is  entitled  to  the  same  protection  as 
the  greatest  majority.  No  denomination.,  whether  numerous  or  not.,  can 
impose  its  views  on  a  minority  at  the  common  expense  of  that  minority 
and  itself.  It  was  against  that  we  contended^ 

These  extracts  are  all  found  in  the  report  of  my  speech  at  Carroll 
TIall,  as  contained  in  the  Freeman's  Journal.  They  are  not  found  in 
the  same  report  as  contained  in  the  Herald.  And  yet  Bennett  in 
his  paper  of  the  21st  inst.  says  that  the  “two  reports”  are,  “ver¬ 
batim  ET  LITERATIM,”  the  Same  with  the  exception  of  two  words  in 
the  description  of  the  enthusiasm  with  vdiich  the  Bishop’s  speech 
was  received.  In  the  Herald  of  the  24th,  he  says  “  we  shall  show  in 
the  most  conclusive  manner,  that  the  report  which  appeared  in  our 
columns  was  identical,  to  the  very  letter,  with  that  which  re¬ 
ceived  his  own  sanction,  and  was  published  to  the  world  in  his  own 
journal.”  In  the  same  paper  of  the  25th,  last  Saturday — “  We  give 
this  report  from  the  Freeman's  Journal — the  Bishop’s  own  paper — a 
report  which  was  subjected  to  his  revision,  and  was  published  with 
his  full  approbation  and  that  of  his  friends  and  again,  “  These 
reports  were  made  by  the  same  gentleman  as  we  have  already  stated, 
.and  we  now  present  the  incontrovertible  proof  that  they  are  word 
forward  the  same — that  the  report  which  the  Bishop  has  so  distinctly 
and  vehemently  denounced  as  a  burlesque  report,  is  to  the  very  letter 
the  same  as  that  published  in  his  own  paper  after  having  received 
nis  sanction.”  Such  is  Bennett’s  repetition  of  his  own  falsehoods. 
I  have  taken  the  trouble  to  exhibit  these  quotations  which  are  found 
in  the  Freeman's  Journal  and  are  not  found  in  the  Herald — not  that 
I  suppose  that  any  one  would  believe  Bennett’s  word  in  opposition 


’470 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


to  mine,  bnt  because  on  the  faitli  of  Bishop  White’s  testimony  and 
my  own  experience,  I  had  appealed  to  the  justice  and  love  of  fair 
play  inherent  in  the  public  opinion  of  Americans  ;  and  because  out 
of  respect  for  that  tribunal  I  wished  to  appear  vindicated,  lest  some 
malevolent  or  incautious  editor  might  quote  these  declarations  of 
his,  on  the  authority,  not  of  Bennett’s,  but  of  “  a  morning  paper.” 
Of  course  the  public  see  the  position  of  both  parties  in  regard  to  this 
only  point  Avhich  even  Bennett  has  raised,  and  they  will  be  the 
better  prepared  to  appreciate  the  following  statement,  contained  in 
the  same  paper  of  the  same  date,  25th  inst. ;  “The  Bishop  has  been 
convicted  of  uttering  a  deliberate — a  most  gross  and  atrocious  fixlse- 
hood.  He  has  been  proved  to  be  guilty  of  circulating  this  falsehood 
through  the  journals  of  this  city.  And  now  we  affix  it  upon  his  fore¬ 
head.  We  brand  this  burning  disgrace  upon  his  cheek  and  dare  him 
to  come  before  the  public  in  any  capacity  for  the  purpose  of  impugn¬ 
ing  the  ACCURACY  of  the  report  whim  we  have  shown  to  be  identical 
with  his  own.”  Unfortunate  man  ! 

Before  I  enter  into  the  detail  of  Bennett’s  abuse,  I  shall  class  under 
two  or  three  general  heads,  the  allegations  which  he  has  made  against 
me.  If  these  allegations  were  true,  I  should  think  it  not  only 
natural,  but  also  reasonable  and  just  that  the  American  people 
should  regard  me  as  an  ill-disposed  and  evil-minded  person.  One  is 
that  I  have  organized  my  flock  into  a  combination  separate  from,  and 
adverse  to,  the  principles  of  the  country  to  which  they  belong,  and 
to  which  alone  they  can  look  for  protection.  Another  is — that  I  am 
somehow  or  other  leagued  with  O’Connell  in  promoting  two  ques¬ 
tions,  one  of  which,  though  interesting  to  every  man  that  loves 
human  rights  and  human  freedom,  is  still,  so  far  as  its  results  are 
concerned,  a  foreign  question,  namely.  Repeal! — the  other  a  question 
of  extreme  delicacy  and  difficulty,  involving  consequences  of  the 
mightiest  import  to  our  domestic  policy,  namely.  Abolition!  Uow 
I  shall  proceed  to  show  first,  that  so  far  from  having  organized  my 
flock  into  a  distinct  class  in  their  civil  relations,  I  have  held  and  still 
hold  the  doctrines  of  David  Hale,  and  the  “Native  Americans”  on 
that  subject.  And  first  with  regard  of  organizing  my  flock  into  a 
separate  class. 

Let  the  reader  refer  to  the  FreemanHs  Journal  of  November  lltb, 
1843,  and  he  will  find  an  article  under  the  head  of  “  Insulting 
Appeals  of  Politicians,”  from  which  the  following  passages  are 
extracts : 

“  We  should  have  thought  that  the  Catholic  citizens  of  this  State 
had  arrived  at  such  a  period  of  intellectual  maturity,  as  would  en¬ 
able  them  to  see  the  despicable  artifice  of  those  who,  on  the  eve  of 
an  election,  appeal  to  them  as  ‘  Adopted  Citizens.’  We  should  have 
thought,  moreover,  that  by  this  time,  they  had  acquired  spirit  and 
self-respect  enough  to  spurn  such  appeals  in  a  manner  that  should 
rebuke  and  disappoint  the  calculations  of  their  despicable  authors. 
‘Adopted  Citizens  ’  can  have  no  rnterest  opposed  to,  or  apart  from, 
those  which  engage  the  attention  of  the  pe(.ple  at  large,  and  should 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


471 


feel  themselves  insulted,  when  they  are  appealed  to  as  if  ccnstituting 
a  distinct  and  separate  class.  Even  in  this  city  such  things  have  so 
often  been  attempted  with  supposed  success,  by  their  friends^  that 
their  enemies  too,  have  availed  themselves  of  the  practice.  On  the 
day  of  tlie  election,  Tuesday  last,  they  were  called  upon  through 
the  medium  of  placards,  headed  with  a  large  black  cross  (for  nothing 
is  too  sacred  for  these  men)  to  vote  for  a  particular  candidate,  and 
this  was  done  with  the  direct  intention  of  accomplishing  his 
defeat.  ’IVe  know  not  who  was  the  author  of  this  ‘  ingenious 
device.’  We  know,  indeed,  that  last  year.  Col.  Stone  published,  with 
all  the  notes  of  horror  which  such  a  spectacle  could  excite  in  the 
breast  of  a  pious  editor  as  he  is,  a  similar  exhibition  of  a  ‘  black 
cross,’  purporting  to  be  a  placai’d  from  the  Catholics,  whilst  he  must 
have  known  that  the  whole  forgery  was  the  work  of  his  colleagues, 
if  not  his  own.”  This  has  reference  to  a  political  recommendation  by 
persons  signing  themselves  ‘  Trustees  of  Christ  Church,’  a  Catho¬ 
lic  church  at  Sandy  Hill,  in  this  State.  The  article  in  the  Freeman’s 
Journal  goes  on  to  review  an  op])osite  recommendation  by  other 
individuals,  and  speaks  thus  :  “  This  counter  recommendation  is 
signed  first,  ‘  Thomas  Kensler,  Lieutenant  of  the  Irish  Greens,’  which 
shows  if  its  signers  had  titles,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  make  use  of 
them,  especially  if  they  Avere  likely  to  have  any  weight  on  the  sup¬ 
posed  stupidity  of  ‘  Ado2)ted  Citizens.’  Then  follows  a  list  of  thirty- 
two  names,  among  which  the  O’Conners  and  O’Neills  and  O’Keefes 
stand  out  conspicuous.  These  be  it  known  are  members  of  Christ 
Church,  Sandy  Hill ;  and  their  indignation  does  not  speak  forth  at 
the  insult  which  is  put  upon  them  as  ‘  Adopted .  Citizens  ’  and 
‘  Catholics,’  and  Avhich  they  put  upon  themselves,  but  is  directed 
against  their  opjAonents  for  having  signed  themselves  ‘  trustees  !’ 
Really,  the  contemj)t  in  which  they  are  held  by  those  who  address 
them  with  such  appeals  is  Avell  merited.  When  they  present  them¬ 
selves  as  ‘  trustees,’  or  as  ‘  Adopted  Citizens,’  or  as  ‘  Catholics,’ 
to  do  the  low  electioneering  of  jjolitical  aspirants,  on  the  eve  of  an 
election,  they  deserved  never  to  be  rated  higher  than  they  are  by 
those  Avho  emjiloy  these  aj^peals — that  is,  as  men  without  common 
intelligence  or  self-respectF 

Abating  the  mixture  of  contemptuous  ejAithets  and  insult,  Avho 
would  not  suppose  that  this  language  is  cojjied  from  an  editorial  of 
David  Hale  or  from  a  sj^eech  of  the  “  Native  Americans  ?”  Yet,  the 
reader  will  be  astonished  to  learn  that  these  extracts  are  from  an 
article  written  by,  and  express  the  sentiments  of  Bishop  Hughes  ! 
— that  man  who  is  represented  by  Bennett,  the  editor  of  the  Com¬ 
mercial  Advertiser^  the  Journal  of  Commerce^  the  orators  of  the 
Native  American  party,  and  many  of  the  grave  and  reverend 
divines  of  our  pulpits,  as  oi’ganizing  his  flock  into  a  distinct  and 
sejiarate  class  as  ‘Hbreigners  and  Catholics  !  !  !” 

As  regards  Repeal  in  Ireland,  the  Bishop  approves  of  it  without 
qualification,  and  especially  considering  the  moral  and  Christian 
sanction  which  appertains  to  the  means  that  have  hitherto  been  em- 


472 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ployed  for  the  promoting  it.  But  I,  sir,  have  never  connected  my 
person,  iny  opinions,  or  rny  name  with  any  association  in  Europe  or 
America,  founded  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  even  that  humane, 
just,  and  liberal  object. 

As  regards  abolition,  happily  for  me,  I  can  refer  to  testimony 
which  no  one  can  suspect  of  being  invoked  or  concocted  for  the 
occasion.  In  the  month  of  March,  1842,  more  than  two  years  ago, 
I  had  occasion  to  write  a  reply  to  a  strange  reference  by  Col.  Webb, 
editor  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer,  on  the  subject  of  an  address 
which  was  circulated  by  the  abolitionists  of  this  country — an  address 
signed  -by  O’Connell  to  his  countrj^men  in  the  United  States.  My 
opinion  at  that  time  was  that  the  document  was  not  authentic.  I  have 
had  reason  since  to  alter  my  opinion,  and  to  believe  that  the  signa¬ 
ture  of  this  great  man  had  been  solicited  and  obtained,  under  a  false 
representation  of  the  true  state  of  the  question  as  regards  slavery  in 
the  United  States.  Here  is  an  extract  from  my  letter  to  Col.  Webb, 
published  in  the  Courier  and  Enquirer,  *  *  *  “  Should  it  (O’Connell’s 
signature)  prove  to  be  authentic,  then  I  have  no  hesitation  in  declar¬ 
ing  my  opinion  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  naturalized  Irishman  to 
resist  and  repiidiate  the  address  with  indignation.  Not  precisely  be¬ 
cause  of  the  doctrines  it  contains,  but  because  of  their  having  emanated 
from  ti  foreign  source,  and  of  their  tendency  to  operate  on  questions 
of  domestic  and  national  policy.  I  am  no  friend  to  slavery,  but 
I  am  still  less  friendly  to  any  attem2it  of  foreign  origin  to 
abolish  it.” 

“  The  duties  of  naturalized  Irishmen  and  others,  I  consider  to  be 
no  wise  distinct  or  different  from  those  of  native  Americans.  And 
if  it  be  proved  an  attempt  has  been  made  by  this  address,  or  any 
other  address,  to  single  them  out  on  any  question,  ajopertaining  to  the 
foreign  or  domestic  policy  of  the  United  States,  in  any  other  capacity 
than  that  of  the  whole  population,  then  it  will  be  their  duty  to  their 
country,  and  their  conscience,  to  rebuke  such  an  attempt,  come  from 
what  foreign  source  it  may,  in  the  most  decided  manner  and  language 
that  common  courtesy  will  permit U 

These,  sir,  constitute  my  vindication  from  the  infamous  charges 
that  have  been  preferred  against  me,  whether  from  the  press  or  from 
the  pul^iit.  But  besides  these,  and  beside  the  jiropositions  covering 
my  whole  character  and  conduct,  laid  down  in  my  former  letter  to 
the  Mayor,  and  which  no  man  can  impugn  with  one  conflicting  fact, 
I  have  to  add  still  other  testimony  going  to  prove  that  I  am  not  the 
man  whom  even  the  furious  denunciations  of  native  Americans 
rejiresented  me  to  be.  Before  the  close  of  this  communication 
you  will  have  seen  the  ferocity  with  which  I  have  been  denounced, 
according  to  Bennett’s  reports  of  their  proceedings,  by  this  new 
pjirty. 

The  following  is  a  transcript  of  an  article  published  in  the  Freeman's 
Journal,  as  far  back  as  February  the  3d,  this  year: 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STOXE. 


473 


“  THE  NATIVE  AMERICAN  PARTY.” 

“  Several  of  our  subscribers  have  intimated  a  wish  that,  inasmuch 
as  this  party  professes  a  special  hostility  toward  foreigners,  we  should 
devote  some  portion  of  our  space  to  a  refutation  of  their  calumnies 
and  misrepresentations.  To  those  who  tliink  so,  we  would  say,  that 
the  object  and  jirinciple  of  our  journal  forbid  us  taking  np  any 
question  of  local  politics ;  and  that  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
renders  it  superlluous  to  engage  in  a  refutation  of  clap-trap  state¬ 
ments,  which  their  authors  themselves  do  not  believe.  The  in¬ 
dividuals  composing  this  party  have  a  political  right  to  associate, 
ajipoiut  officers,  make  speeches,  designate  candidates,  and  elect  tliein 
if  they  can.  It  is  true  they  have  no  moral  right  to  employ  falsehood 
in  their  speeches  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  their  number,  or  of 
inflaming  tlie  public  mind.  But  this  violation  of  moral  right  must 
be  met  with  by  the  exercise  of  moral  duty  on  our  part — that  is, 
patience  and  unexceptionable  deportment.  We  would  even  caution 
all,  who  may  be  influenced  by  our  opinion,  against  any  act  unworthy 
of  the  liigh  character  which  foreigners,  generally,  by  their  good  and 
peaceful  conduct,  have  acquired  in  the  minds  of  the  respectable  por¬ 
tion  of  the  community.  No  greater  injury  could  be  injiicted  on  the 
interests  of  foreigners^  no  greater  disgrace  could  he  affixed  on  their  char¬ 
acter^  than  if  they  alloived  themselves  to  he  provoked  into  any  act,  in¬ 
consistent  with  the  laws  and  good  order  of  society.  Tliis  remark  is  par¬ 
ticularly  applicable  to  Catholics,  for,  it  is  quite  evident  that  no  for¬ 
eigners  in  general,  but  Catholics  in  pa/rticular,  are  the  objects  of  the 
hatred  of  this  spurious  nativeism.  We  would  urge,  then,  emphatically 
on  Catholics,  to  bear  themselves,  in  all  respects,  in  a  manner  which  will 
prove  them  worthy  of  the  privileges  and  rights  which  they  eujoy. 
Many  will  probably  join  this  party  who  are  really  friends  of  foreign¬ 
ers,  but  who  for  the  moment  will  coalesce  with  their  enemies  to 
accomplish  some  local  purpose,  of  which  foreigners  constitute  no 
part.  The  true  issue  is  for  the  loaves  and  Ashes  of  office,  and  as 
but  a  small  shai-e  of  those,  if  any,  falls  to  the  lot  of  foreigners  so, 
notwithstanding  the  abuse  of  their  name,  they  may  consider  them¬ 
selves  as  scarcely  interested  in  the  quarrel.  The  true  issue  is  between 
natives  and  natives ;  there  let  it  remain.  The  part  which  foreigners 
should  take  will  be  to  side  with,  and  support  those,  who,  besides 
personal  worth,  profess  to  carry  out  the  fair  and  liberal  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  country.” 

“  Those  who  will  have  read  these  remarks  will  find  in  them,  a 
suflicient  explanation  of  the  reason  why  we  have  Avasted  so  little  of 
our  s|)ace  with  the  question  of  Nati^m  Amei’icanism.” 

These,  so  far  as  I  can  recollect,  are  the  doctrines  for  the  pretended 
violation  of  Avhich  I  have  been  so  falsely  .and  injuriously  assailed 
by  Mr.  Hale  and  the  “Native  Americans.”  And  yet  this  article, 
published  editorially  in  the  Freeman's  Journal,  as  already  described, 
is  from  the  pen  of  Bishop  Hughes,  who  is  represented  as  organizing 
his  people  into  a  separate  class  ! ! !  Again,  look  at  another  news- 


4U 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


paper  calliid  the  Truth  Teller^  over  which  I  have  no  control,  published 
January  6th,  1844,  under  the  title  of  “  The  Press  of  New  York,” 
and  you  will  find  in  an  article  of  nearly  a  column’s  length  the  fol¬ 
lowing  passage,  which  expresses  the  spirit  of  the  whole : 

“  Now,  we  are  satisfied  that  if  it  he  necessary  to  speak  of  a  portion 
of  the  community  as  foreigners  at  all,  their  true  course  here,  and,  so 
far  as  this  place  is  concerned,  elsewhere  too,  is  to  enter  into  no  discus¬ 
sion  with  those  persons  who  distinguish  themselves  in  the  manner  we 
liave  just  referred  to.  In  this  country,  speech,  like  ojunion,  is  free ; 
and  if  this  party  so  called  should  persevere  in  the  ferocious  spirit  of 
its  denunciations,  it  will  find  its  corrective,  not  in  the  arguments 
which  might  he  urged  on  the  part  of  the  assailed,  but  in  the  dearer 
self-interest  of  those  who  foresee  that  their  prospects  will  be  blighted 
by  its  success,  *  *  *  but  they  have  failed  hitherto  in  exciting  any¬ 

thing  like  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  adopted  citizens  ;  neither  the 
Irish,  nor  German,  nor  English,  nor  Scotch  citizens,  have  con¬ 
descended  either  to  notice  their  proceedings,  or  in  any  manner  to 
resent  their  insults.  This  Is  as  it  should  be.” 

This  article,  too,  is  from  the  pen  of  Bishop  Hughes,  so  famous,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  echoes  of  slander,  for  organizing  his  people  into  a  sep- 
erate  class  for  political  purposes.  These  are  the  articles  to  which  I 
alluded  in  my  last  communication,  when  I  remarked  that  “  from  a 
very  early  period,  I  prevented  the  only  papers  which  affected  to  rep¬ 
resent  Catholic  interests,  from  opposing  either  the  principles  or  the 
progress  of  the  new  party.  When  the  private  interest  or  enter¬ 
prise  of  individuals  urged  them  to  establish  new  papers  intended 
expressly  to  oppose  the  progress  of  ‘  Native  Americanism,’  and  to 
uphold  the  constitutional  rights  of  foreigners  of  all  religions,  I 
peremptorily  refused  to  give  either  patronage  or  approbation — fore¬ 
seeing,  as  I  imagined,  to  what  points  such  antagonism  must  lead.” 
I  know  that  the  irresponsible  editor  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce 
rates  me  as  if  I  had  “  prevented  ”  or  “  caused  to  be  published  these 
papers  ”  by  an  absolute  authority,  or  by  physical  force.  It  was  not 
so ;  but  merely  by  the  influence  of  moral  means,  such  as  a  friend 
uses  towards  a  friend,  actuated  by  the  desire  for  the  peace, 
security  and  honor  of  society.  And  his  reasoning  is  that  it  is 
most  dangerous  to  the  community  that  it  should  include  one  mem¬ 
ber  capable  of  anticipating  and  preventing  the  horrors  which  have 
occurred  in  another  city !  But  I  have  already  stated  that  I  look  upon 
the  editor  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce^  as  morally  irresponsible  for 
what  he  says. 

From  all  this  it  will  be  seen,  not  only  that  Bennett  and  his  fol¬ 
lowers,  have  no  facts  whereby  to  establish  their  abuse  of  me,  but, 
that  I  have  abundant  facts  to  establish  the  truth  of  sentiments,  of 
language,  and  of  conduct,  directly  the  opposite  of  those  which  they 
have  charged  upon  me.  I  have  already  published  my  sentiments  in 
reference  to  an  Irish  or  Catholic  organization,  and  to  any  political 
distinction  between  adopted  and  native  citizens.  With  Repeal  I 
never  had  anything  to  do,  except  as  a  looker  on.  On  the  question 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


475 


of  Abolitionism  the  same.  But,  as  may  be  seen,  when  the  name  of 
IMr.  O’Connell  was  employed  as  a  charm  to  convert  his  countrymen 
in  the  United  States  into  Abolitionists,  I  did  suggest  to  them  in  my 
letter  to  the  Courier  ayid  Enquirer  that  whatever  might  be  their 
opinions  on  the  subject,  anything  like  dictation  or  advice  from  any 
foreign  source^  on  that  subject  was  to  be  met  with  rebuke  or  indigna¬ 
tion.  I  have  never  attended  or  taken  part  in  a  political  meeting  or 
movement  in  my  life.  I  have  never  voted  in  my  life,  except  once.  I  have 
never  made  a  political  speech  in  my  life ;  and  I  dare  any  one  on  earth  .to 
meet  me  in  contradiction  of  this  statement.  The  School  Question  is  a 
subject  which  can  be  explained  in  a  few  words.  The  Catholics  of  New 
York  for  sixteen  years  had  been  deprived  of  the  benefits  of  the  taxes 
which,  in  common  with  their  fellow-citizens,  they  had  to  pay  for  educa¬ 
tion.  They  had  created  a  few  free  schools  to  supply  as  well  as  might 
be  the  evils  resulting  from  this  privation.  The  question  now  arises, 
why  were  they  deprived  of  the  rights  of  education  ?  And  the  an¬ 
swer  to  that  question  presents  the  issue  made  in  the  whole  contro¬ 
versy.  The  Public  School  Society  assigned  as  a  reason  that  the 
Catholics  Avere  bigoted,  and  that  their  priests  kept  them  apart  from 
the  other  children.,  lest  they  should  become  enlightened,  Americanized, 
and,  as  a  consequence,  Protestants,  as  soon  as  they  grow  up.  The 
Catholics,  on  the  other  hand,  denied  this  ;  and  alleged  that  the 
lystem  of  the  Public  School  Society  was  adapted  to  make  the  chil¬ 
dren  Protestants  or  infidels  first,  or  simultaneously  with  education. 
Here  is  the  controversy  on  these  two  statements.  The  Catholics 
alleged  that  the  elementary  books  of  the  schools  put  into  the  hands 
of  their  children  were  calculated,  if  not  intended,  to  poison  their 
minds  in  reference  to  their  religion.  For  months  and  years  this  was 
denied  by  the  Public  School  Society.  That  it  was  true,  they  them¬ 
selves  have  had  the  candor  to  acknowledge,  by  blackening  certain 
portions  of  their  books,  and  this  at  their  own  motion.,  and  not  at  any 
instance  of  mine.  As  an  instance  of  those  passages  I  will  quote, 
among  others,  the  following  ; 

“  John  IIuss,  a  zealous  reformer  from  Popery,  who  lived  in 
Bohemia  toward  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  and  the  beginning  of 
the  fifteenth  centuries.  He  was  bold  and  persevering  i  but  at  length, 
trusting  to  the  deceitful  Catholics.,  he  was  by  them  brought  to  trial, 
condemned  as  a  heretic,  and  burnt  at  the  stake.” 

The  principles  of  the  Public  School  Society  and  their  friends  was, 
that  the  Catholics  should  pay  their  school  taxes  like  others  (which 
they  did),  and  then,  after  having  paid  their  taxes,  send  their  children 
to  the  schools  to  have  their  minds  imbued  with  sentiments  like  this, 
combining  at  once  prejudice,  uncharitableness,  and,  withal,  blunder¬ 
ing  historical  inaccuracv. 

Tlie  Catholics,  on  the  other  hand,  woifid  not  agree  to  have  the 
feelings  and  understandings  of  their  children  misled  by  such 
sentiments,  as  the  benefit  offered  to  them  in  retuim  for  the  taxes 
which  the  law  required  them  to  pay.  They  petitioned,  as  good 
citizens  ought  to  do,  u.ider  the  pressure  of  a  grievance.  The^ 


4’76 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


discussed — they  reasoned  with  their  opponents.  And  this  led  to  the 
results  already  referred  to.  But  the  ungenerous  trick  of  the  friends 
of  the  Public  School  Society,  on  discovering  that  without  trick,  false¬ 
hood  and  misrepresentation  w^ere  no  match  for  truth,  was  to  allow 
as  far  as  possible  no  one  to  be  elected,  except  such  as  should  first 
bind  themselves  to  deyiy  redress  for  the  greivance  complained  of — no 
matter  how  just  or  how  real  that  grievance  might  be.  Then,  it  was 
on  the  very  eve  of  the  election,  that  at  a  meeting  in  Carroll  Hall  on 
the  School  Question,  when  the  knowledge  of  this  trick  broke  upon 
ns,  I  expressed  the  sentiments  which  I  still  stand  by,  whether 
rightly  reported  or  not,  as  they  are  found  in  the  Freemayds  Journal^ 
but  not  as  they  are  adorned  with  the  waving  of  sh  illalahs  in  Bennett’s 
Herald  :  Bennett  says  that  the  two  reports  are  “  word  for  word,” 
“  verbatim  et  literatim^  the  same.”  Bennett  knew  when  he  wrote 
this,  last  week,  that  he  was  writing  ■what  was  not  true — and  now  the 
public  know  that  he  knew  it.  My  speech  at  Carroll  Hall  was  not 
the  speech  of  a  politician.  It  was  the  speech  of  a  man  who  has  some 
reverence  for  the  dignity  of  human  nature.  It  was  the  speech  of  an 
American  who  knows  and  prizes  the  rights  secured  by  the  American 
Constitution,  which  he  would  not  wish  to  see  violated  in  any 
denomination  of  Christians,  more  than  in  his  own.  Read  that 
speech  as  it  is  in  the  Freemards  Journal.  Is  there  any  appeal  to 
foreigners,  to  Irish,  to  Catholics,  to  politicians,  or  to  any  class  of 
beings,  except  so  far  as  a  principle  of  clear  indisputable  right  and 
justice  could  be  an  appeal  to  the  understanding  and  the  hearts  of 
every  honest  man  ? 

Turn  now,  sir,  I  pray  you,  after  having  read  the  blasting  refuta¬ 
tion  of  Bennett’s  last  falsehood,  to  the  nine  propositions  laid  down 
in  my  last  letter  as  facts.  If  those  facts  are  true,  I  ask  you 
whether  there  is  a  man  among  us  who  can  present  himself  at  the 
bar  of  a  just  and  honorable  o})inion,  in  a  more  unexceptionable 
character,  as  a  citizen,  as  a  Christian  pastoi’,  than  I  do  in  repelling 
the  excess  of  scurrilous  abuse  and  calumny  which  has  been  heaped 
upon  me  ?  But  if  these  propositions  are  not  true,  again  I  say — 
“  Row,  therefore,  James  Gordon  Bennett,  Wm  L.  Stone,  and  ye 
other  deceivers  of  the  public,  stand  forth  and  meet  Bishoji  Ilughes.” 

A  few  words  more  and  I  shall  close  with  what  appertains  to  my 
own  vindication. 

In  my  letter  to  his  Honor  the  Mayor  I  stated  as  follows,  in 
reference  to  the  meeting  at  Carroll  Hall : 

“  But  there  was  a  reporter  of  Bennett’s  there  who  made  such  a 
speech  as  he  thouglit  proper,  which  was  afterwards,  as  I  have  reason 
to  believe,  fitted  up  for  the  purpose  of  producing  one  of  Bennett’s 
‘  tremendous  excitements,'  and  making  the  ‘  Herald  alw'ays  the  first 
and  most  enterprising  paper  in  Rew  York.’  Having  taken  this 
report,  having  studded  it  with  the  gems  of  his  own  ribaldry,  and 
made  some  half  a  column  of  editorial  comments,  in  all  that  mock 
gravity  of  which  Bennett  is  capable,  the  Herald  of  the  next  morn¬ 
ing  became  the  basis  and  fountain  of  all  the  vituperatir  n,  calumny, 


LETTEE  TO  COL.  STONE. 


477 


and  slander  which  have  been  heaped  on  Bishop  Hughes  throughout 
the  United  States,  from  that  day  to  this.” 

All  this  was  from  memory,  and  I  apologized  by  anticipation,  if 
in  questions  of  memory  I  had  made  any  mistake.  In  his  attempt  to 
re]')ly  to  this,  on  the  25th,  he  states  that  the  whole  question  turns  on 
the  accuracy  of  the  report  alone.  This  is  false ^  I  said  the  '•'•Herald 
of  the  next  morning,”  including  both  the  report  and  the  editorial 
comments  made  with  the  mock  gravity  which  he  sometimes  put  on, 
in  derision  of  mankind.  So  that  here  is  falsehood  both  in  altering 
and  in  suppressing  truth.  In  that  editorial,  headed  with  flaming 
letters,  he  announced  a.  new  and  extraordinary  movement — mixture  of 
politics  and  religion — he  makes  the  clergy  as  well  as  myself  speakers, 
etc.  Noav,  none  of  the  Catholic  clergy  took  any  part  in  the 
proceedings  whatever,  nor  have  they  in  the  discussion  of  the  School 
Question,  with  one  or  two  solitary  exceptions.  Ueither  was  there 
any  mixture  of  politics  and  religion  that  I  am  aware  of,  except  what 
is  found  in  every  assemblage  of  men,  who  have  some  idea  of  religion 
and  j^olitios,  without  the  slightest  consciousness  of  any  necessary 
“  mixture.”  Words  of  this  kind — written  maliciously — read  hastily 
— sent  forth  at  a  time  of  great  party  excitement — caxigh  t  xip  according 
to  the  hue  and  tone  of  the  passions — commented  on  as  they  have  been, 
became  unquestionably  the  fountain  and  basis  of  all  the  vituperation 
that  has  been  heaped  on  me  throughout  the  United  States  from 
that  day  until  this.  After  what  I  have  said  already,  the  truth  of 
one  word  of  which  not  even  Bennett  will  dare  to  deny,  I  ask  you 
to  ponder  on  the  direction  given  to  the  public  mind  by  this  article — 
and  I  think  you  will  see  that,  by  necessity,  this  man  perverts  truth 
in  the  spirit  of  the  article — he  perverts  it  in  tlie  adjective — he  perverts 
it  in  the  noun — in  the  preposition — he  perverts  it  in  what  he  says, 
and  so  far  as  the  moral  effect  is  concerned,  he  perverts  it  in  what  he 
suppresses.  But  I  cannot  spare  time  for  the  minute  exposure  of  his 

atrocities  on  mv  character. 

%> 

The  examination  of  this  question  has  impressed  on  my  mind  more 
deeply  than  ever  the  soundness  of  the  quotation  at  the  head  of  this 
letter.  And  I  do  believe  that  so  far  as  regards  tlie  things  of  this 
^vov\(\,  falsehood  would  be  “  almighty”  if  it  were  not  for  truth  alone. 
There  are,  certainly,  most  curious  forces  concealed  and  mingled  with 
the  elements  of  material  nature.  I  do  not  speak  of  mesmerism — but 
I  would  just  call  your  attention  to  the  phenomena  that  are 
produced  by  the  action  of  a  galvanic  battery.  When  its  foi^ce  is 
made  to  act  on  a  dead  body,  you  perceive  what  a  shocking  mimicry 
of  life  is  produced.  There  are  manifestations,  as  if  an  artificial 
soul  had  again  acquired  the  mastery  and  dominion  over  the  move¬ 
ment  of  joints,  sinews  and  muscles.  Uow,  it  seems  to  me  that  I 
have  discovered  a  latent  principle  somewhat  analagons,  in  power  of 
truth.  And  if  I  can  bring  out  the  correctness  of  theory,  I  hope  to 
be  ranked  among  the  philosophers  of  the  age — for  whom  I  ha\'e  a 
greater  i-espect  than  for  its  politicians.  I  shall  make  my  experiments 
on  James  Gordon  Bennett.  And  in  order  that  they  may  be  fairly 


478 


AECIIBISHOP  HUGHES. 


tried,  it  is  essential  that  he  should  stand  in  the  midst  of  a  large  ring 
of  speetat  jrs — hut  no  one  shall  touch  him.  Of  course,  my  battery 
is  moral,  and  its  effects  are  to  be  produced  on  his  will  and  power  over 
his  own  motions  ?  If  the  theory  be  sound,  the  spectators  will  witness 
the  following  phenomena.  Whenever  the  force  is  applied,  Mr. 
James  Gordon  Bennett  shall  lose  all  power  over  his  own  will ;  and  in 
spite  of  himself,  he  will  jerk  his  arms  and  impress  on  his  forehead  a 
certain  combination  of  letters  in  which  all  that  is  least  honorable  in 
the  English  alphabet  will  be  concentrated.  In  order  that  the  experi¬ 
ment  should  be  fairly  tested  it  is  necessary  that  he  should  look  Truth 
full  in  the  face.  In  this  he  will  find  some  difficulty,  though  he  is 
accustomed,  to  see  very  well  on  either  side  of  it.  However,  I  shall 
shift  it,  as  circumstances  may  require,  to  meet  the  focus  of  his  vis¬ 
ion.  I  shall  commence  with  one  of  the  most  cruel  things  he  ever  said 
of  me. 

“We  have  never  uttered  a  syllable  against  him  as  a  private  in¬ 
dividual.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  uniformly  spoken  of  him  as  a 
man  of  talent,  of  most  amiable  character.^  of  piety.,  of  integrity,  of  un¬ 
tiring  zeal  for  his  church  and  creed. — Bennett,  May  21,  1844. 

Now,  sir,  look  out  for 

Experiment  No.  1. 

“  Bishop  Hughes,  from  having  been  a  good  gardener,  a  raiser  of 
cabbages  and  carrots,  has  become  a  Bishop  of  the  Church,  and  now 
tends  souls  instead  of  salads,  but  his  original  tastes  still  exists.  He  is 
one  of  the  most  fawning  sycophants  to  power  that  ever  presided  in  the 
Church,  and  all  those  who  have  money  and  power,  of  any  church,  are 
his  polar  stars.  He  loants  all  manliness  and  independence  I' — Bennett, 
May  12,  1841. 

l)id  you  observe  any  motion  of  the  arms  ?  Can  you  trace  the 
letters  ?  «Now,  it  is  manifest  that  this  result  is  in  spite  of  the  voli¬ 
tion  of  Bennett’s  will.  It  is  the  homage  which  falsehood  pays  to 
the  majesty  of  truth,  not  by  the  application  of  external  force,  not  by 
the  free  will  of  the  worshippers,  but  by  the  unsuspected,  hidden, 
but  almighty  power  that  is  inherent  in  truth  itself. 

Hear  him  again  : 

“  So  long  as  Bishop  Hughes  conducted  the  controversy  before  the 
Common  Council  of  the  city — so  long  as  he  sought  in  his  own  sphere, 
and  by  the  appropriate  weapons,  reason  and  argument,  to  convince 
men  of  the  accuracy  of  his  views  and  the  justice  of  his  jirojects, 
he  w.as  not  liable  to  censure.  And  so  long  as  he  thus  conducted  the 
agitation.  Bishop  Hughes  received  no  censure  from  us.  We 
might  have  differed  with  him  ;  but  we  should,  indeed,  have  merited 
the  full  vials  of  his  wrath,  and  that  of  all  men,  had  we  denounced 
nim  or  interfered  with  him,  so  long  as  he  kept  in  his  own  sphere 
and  within  his  legitimate  limits,  as  the  religious  guardian  of  his 
people.  But  from  the  very  moment  when  he  first  departed  from  the 
place  of  a  Christian  Bishop,  and  adopted  the  disreputable  weapons 
of  a  mere  political  gladiator,  from  that  moment  he  became  amenable 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


479 


to  the  censure  of  public  opinion,  and  from  i/iai  moment  we' denounced 
him.” — Bennett,  May  25,  1844. 

Now,  sir,  in  order  to  prepare  for  Experiment  No.  2,  I  beg  you  to 
bear  in  mind  that  things  were  exactly  in  the  situation  hei’e  described, 
when  Bennett  wrote  the  following  attack,  published  before  the  meet¬ 
ing  at  Carroll  Hall : 

Experiment  No.  2. 

“  Bishop  Hughes,  who  from  the  highly  respectable  trade  of  raising 
cabbages  (having  been  a  capital  kitchen  gardener  once  on  a  day,) 
became  a  raiser  of  Catholics  and  Christians,  has  the  sole  merit  of 
originating  this  small  potato  question.  He  started  the  'project  a  few 
years  ago,  in  humble  imitation  of  Daniel  O'  Connell  and  the  ‘  rintj  one 
of  its  purposes  being  to  organize  the  Irish  Catholics  of  Hew  York 
as  a  distinct  party,  that  could  be  given  to  the  Whigs  or  Loco  Locos  at  the 
wave  of  his  crazier." — Bennett,  29th  October,  1841. 

Do  you  see  any  jerking  here  again  ?  Do  you  see  any  new  mark 
on  Bennett's  forehead  branded  by  his  own  hand  ? 

Again,  still : 

“  There  is  one  charge  however  in  this  letter  which  is  so  extra¬ 
ordinary,  so  inexplicable,  so  atrocious  that  we  must  notice  it  to-day. 
The  charge  is,  that  we  once  attacked  Mrs.  Daniel  O’Connell,  the 
venerable  and  pious  wife  of  Daniel  himself,  and  that  this  was  the 
cause  of  the  brutal  treatment  which  we  received  from  the  celebrated 
O’Connell  when  we  visited  the  Corn  Exchange,  Dublin.  This  is, 
indeed,  a  piece  of  information  which  has  completely  astounded  us. 
We  never  dreamed  of  such  an  accusation,  as  may  surely  be  well 
believed,  when  we  never  wrote  a  syllable,  or  uttered  a  word,  or 
even  thought  of  Mrs.  O’Connell,  in  the  whole  course  of  our  life. 
The  entire  falsity,  the  utter  impossibility  of  our  having  wu-itten  or 
printed  a  line  against  Mrs.  O’Connell  is  at  once  apparent,  when  it  is 
known  that  during  the  last  twenty  years  that  I  have  been  connected 
with  the  press  in  this  country — nearly  one  half  of  which  period  as 
proprietor  and  conductor  of  the  New  York  Herald — up  to  the  afthir  in 
the  Corn  Exchange,  in  every  reference  to  O’Connell,  I  expressed 
admiration  of  the  man,  and  column  after  column  I  have  written 
defending  him,  and  even  attempting  to  apologize  for  his  attack  on 
the  Southern  institutions  of  this  country.  Attack  Mrs.  O’Connell ! 
A  more  daring  and  deliberate  falsehood  than  this  never  proceeded 
from  the  Father  of  Lies.  I  cast  it  back  on  Bishop  Hughes  with  all 
the  burning  indignation  which  can  be  imagined  in  one  so  grossly 
assailed — one  ivho  never,  even  by  implication,  attacked  any  female  in 
any  mode  or  shape  whatever.  Thus  much  on  that  point.” — Bennett, 
May  21,  1844. 

Experiment  No.  3. 

“  We  would  advise  O’Connell  not  to  make  the  tour  of  the  United 
States'  for  the  sake  of  ?is  numerous  children  and  concubines,  who 
might  be  left  fatherless  and  comfortless.  Will  our  readers  believe 


480 


AECHBISHOr  HUGHES. 


that  this  same  moral  rascal,  O’Connell,  once  made  a  public  boast  that 
lie  neA'er  spared  a  man  in  his  anger,  or  a  woman  in  his  lust.  His 
Avife  once,  in  order  to  shame  this  scoundrel,  collected  together  six 
young  Avomen  whom  he  had  seduced,  and  employed  them  about  his 
house  in  various  menial  capacities.  Yet  this  heartless,  unprincipled, 
eoAvardly  Avretch,  has  the  unblushing  effrontery,”  etc. — Bennett's 
Herald^  vol.  iA',  No.  130. 

This  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  most  interesting  experiments  of  the 
whole  ;  and  the  phenomena  of  galvanism  can  exhibit  nothing  like  it. 
You  see  that,  in  opposition  to  his  own  will,  he  has  fixed  the  first 
brand  on  his  OAvn  forehead  in  reference  to  Mrs.  O’Connell.  And 
now  I  want  to  see  whether  the  moral  influence  of  truth  Avill  not 
compel  him  to  fix  another,  cross Avise,  in  reference  to  the  same  subject, 

“  To  my  great  surprise  and  astonishment,  (he  says)  these  remarks 
were  of  an  offensive  character  and  such  as  it  never  could  have 
entered  into  my  mind  to  conceAe  (?)  I  knew  nothing  of  them  whatever., 
till  I  read  them  in  my  own  paper  the  next  morning.  I  AAms  indeed 
exceedingly  chagrined  at  the  time,  and  remonstrated  severely  with 
the  gentleman  who  wrote  them.”  [The  gentleman  who  wrote  them  !] 
— Bennett.,  May  23,  1844. 

N o  w,  see  whether  the  phenomenon  of  a  cross-brand  is  to  be  realized 
according  to  my  theory  of  truth. 

“  Every  editorial  article  which  apjAears  in  the  Herald  is  AAwitten  in 
this  office,  by  Avhom  it  matters  not ;  but  all  written  under  the  control 
and  superintendence  of  one  mind.” — Bennett.,  Janvary  22,  1844. 

In  the  following  experiment,  I  shall  make  Bennett,  for  the  enter¬ 
tainment  of  the  spectators,  go  through  another  compound  movement  of 
this  kind,  Avhich  cannot  but  prove  very  interesting.  In  the  first 
place,  in  order  to  understand  the  question,  he  invents  a  meeting  of 
“  Native  Americans,”  composes  speeches  for  them ;  and  as  if  his 
intention  were  to  direct  any  mob  that  might  afterwards  arise  to  the 
burning  of  our  cMirches.,  he  publishes  in  one  of  these  speeches  “  that 
there  are  dungeons  under  St.  Patrick’s  Cathedral,  AAdflch  can  be 
intended  for  no  other  purpose  than  the  imprisonment  and  tortm’e  of 
the  Protestant  ministers  of  the  city,  when  the  Catholics  should  gain 
the  ascendancy.”  In  reference  to  this  subject  he  says,  a  feAV  days 
afterAvards  : 

“  The  Express  of  this  city,  a  most  misei’able  concern,  actually  had 
the  axiflacity  yesterday  to  declare,  with  spasmodic  AAU’igglings  that 
all  this  movement  Avas  a  hoax,  and  that  all  those  speeches  Avhich  are 
noAv,  through  our  instrumentality,  circulating  all  over  the  country,  is 
a  hoax.  We  can  only  say  that  the  speakers  thus  ridiculed,  and  so 
unceremoniously  voted  out  of  existence,  could  give  the  miserable 
creatures  of  the  Express  proofs  of  their  identity  of  their  flesh  and 
blood  existence,  equally  striking  and  conAuncing  as  that  Avhich  the 
honest  countryman  gaAm  the  philosopher  who  had  very  learn  >dly 
argued  in  his  hearing  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  motion  ” — 
Bennet,  November  23,  1843. 

Here,  you  perceive,  is  the  denial  of  the  forgery.  Now  then,  for 


LETTEK  TO  COL.  STONE. 


481 


Experiment  No.  4. 

“  And  in  order  to  place  the  whole  plan  of  operations  before  the 
new  party  and  before  the  public,  we  got  up  the  famous ''  American 
Republican  meeting  in  American  Republican  Hall,  between  Broad- 
M\ay  and  the  Bowery,’  which  was  a  piece  of  imagination,  and  intended 
to  present,  in  a  practicable  and  intelligible  form,  the  best  mode 
of  conducting  the  new  agitation — the  best  plan  of  carrying  on  the 
canvass — and  the  topics  which  most  properly  invited  the  attention 
of  th.e  s})eakers  and  leaders  of  the  movement.  And  this  succeeded 
ndmirahly.  The  ground  we  thus  pointed  out,  in  a  practical,  and  at  the 
same  Xiima  delicate  and  unobtrusive  manner^  was  given  by  the  leaders  of 
the  movement,  and  the  agitation  went  on  from  that  hour  with  spirit 
and  success.  All  the  proceedings  of  the  party  were  reported  accord- 
ingly  by  us,  and  the  public  in  this  way  kept  regularly  informed  of  the 
views,  the  purposes,  and  the  progress  of  the  reform  party.  It  is 
true,  that  the  Express  and  other  papers  blustered  a  good  deal,  and 
cried  out  ‘  forgery’ — but  that  did  not  prevent  our  mode  of  present¬ 
ing  the  true,  tenable  ground  of  the  new  party  from  producing  the 
desired  effect^ — Bennett^  April  20,  1844. 

The  shedding  of  human  blood,  and  the  burning  down  of  Catholic 
Churches  might  be  anticipated,  as  the  natural,  (whether  it  was  the 
“  desired,”)  elTect  of  such  jiublications  or  not.  And  the  wailing 
families  and  ruined  temples  of  another  city  can  best  declare  whether 
the  means  and  end  have  not  been  in  true  keeping  with  each  other. 
But,  at  any  rate,  you  see  by  applying  the  latent  foi-ce  of  truth,  his 
hands  fly  up  against  his  will,  and  fix  another  melancholy  brand  upon 
his  forehead.  As  a  small  sequel  to  all  this,  I  will  just  mention,  that 
after  having  directed  as  far  as  he  could,  the  attention  of  any  mob 
that  might  be,  against  the  Catholic  churches — after  having  fanned 
the  embers  of  social  division  into  a  flame — after  having  seen  the 
earth  crimsoned  with  human  blood,  which  ought  to  have  been 
reserved  for  the  defense  of  the  country,  a.nd  all  this,  as  I  have  said, 
the  natural,  if  not  the  desired  effect  of  his  villanous  falsehoods,  he 
can  discover  in  it  all,  even  now,  nothing  more  than  an  equality  with 
one  of  the  “  moral  essays  known  under  the  title  of  iEsop’s 
Fables.”  There  is  this  difference  however,  that  jEsoph  Fables  did 
not  tend  to  arson  and  bloodshed ;  and  the  only  similarity  that  the 
comparison  suggests,  is,  that  physically,  according  to  the  ancients, 
/Esop  was  a  beautv — and  so,  I  am  told,  is  Mr.  Bennett. 

But,  I  trust  the  experiments  already  made  are  sufticient  to  establish 
my  theory  of  the  latent  power  of  Truth  over  Falsehood — as  being 
vastly  more  wonderful  in  its  action  on  mind,  than  galvanism  itself 
in  its  application  to  inanimate,  but  articulate  bodies. 

There  is  one  infallible  test  proving  that  any  religion,  so  called, 
which  inspires  men  with  hatred,  one  tOAvard  another,  even  on 
account  of  religious  difference  ca»?^oHnsomuch,  be  of  God;  for  God 
is  love.  True  religion  inspires  us  Avith  sentiments  of  love  towards 
God,  first,  and  above  all ;  and  next,  love  toward  our  neighbor  as 
31 


482 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ourselves.  Now,  our  Saviour  has  taught  us  most  beautifully,  iu  the 
example  of  the  good  Samaritan,  that  love  for  our  neighbor  means 
all  mankind.  You,  yourself  sir,  have  once  illustrated  tins  admirable 
and  infallible  text,  so  far  as  sentiment  and  feeling  are  concerned,  of 
true  religion.  And  although  my  opinion,  on  such  a  topic,  will  be 
recei^■ed  as  little  worth,  I  will  say — there  never  was  a  prouder  day 
for  the  Protestant  religion  which  you  profess,  and  for  your  own  fame, 
than  that  on  which  you  rejected  the  testimony  of  Maria  Monk; 
albeit  she  was  endorsed  by  reverend  hands  as  a  hopeful  convert  from 
Popery,  and  her  filthy  book  recommended  as  a  veracious  and 
opportune  production.  I  will  make  bold  to  say  that  in  sickness  or 
in  health,  in  life  or  at  death,  you  cannot  look  back  except  with 
pleasurable  emotions,  to  that  proud  day,  on  which,  understanding  the 
true  interests  and  honor  of  your  religion  better  than  its  official 
advocates,  you  exclaimed  with  honorable  indignation  : 

Non  talibus  auxiliis,  non  defensoribus  istis. 

But  how,  sir,  could  you  have  so  far  forgotten  what  was  due  to 
the  memory  of  that  day,  as  to  receive  tlie  testimony,  not  of  a 
Protestant  like  Maria  Monk,  but  of  “  a  Roman  Catholic  editor  j’’  as  you 
had  the  cruelty  to  call  him  in  your  paper,  of  the  30th  day  of  October, 
1841.  If  you  had  given  Bennett’s  statement  without  the  endorse¬ 
ment  of  your  own  respectable  name,  his  character  would  have  been 
an  antidote  to  the  poison  wdiich  he  circulates ;  and  the  deplorable 
results  which  since  followed,  would  in  all  probability  never  have 
occurred.  But  I  shall  not  press  this  matter  on  your  attention,  at 
the  present  time.  In  fact,  from  what  I  read  of  him  in  your  papei:, 
and  other  respectable  Journals,  I  supposed  that  their  editors  would 
not  have  been  willing  to  have  placed  the  slightest  confidence  in  him 
in  regard  to  any  matter  involving  truth  and  honor.  And  yet  what 
was  my  astonishment  in  beholding  him  converted  under  your  pen 
into  “  a  Roman  Catholic  editor,”  and  his  testimony  received  by  you 
as  if  you  regarded  it  with  habitual  confidence.  The  man  himself  I 
have  never  seen  ;  but  my  opinion  of  him  had  been  already  formed 
by  two  circumstances  which,  for  me,  were  quite  enough.  One  was 
that  he  was  understood,  in  Philadelphia,  I  think,  to  have  published 
private  and  confidential  letters;  another  was  that  he  seemed  to  deny 
and  repudiate  his  country  and  countiymeu.  The  first  is  the  only 
service  he  could  render  to  the  land  of  Bruce  and  Wallace ;  and  for 
the  second  there  is  another  reason,  no  doubt,  which  his  countrymen 
can  explain.  It  seems,  however,  that  though  horn  in  Scotland  he 
makes  a  good  “  Native  American.”  He  says, 

“  Why,”  asked  my  friend,  “  don’t  you  go  among  your  country¬ 
men  oftener  ?”  “  Do  you  mean  the  Scotch,”  said  I.  “  I  do,”  said 

he.  “  Then  I’ll  tell  you  the  reason,  they  are  a  d — d  scaly  set,  from 
top  to  bottom,  and  when  I  pass  them  in  the  street  I  always  take  the 
windward  side,  and  avoid  shaking  hands  as  I  would  avoid  the  itch.’ 
Ha!  ha!  ha!  ho!  ho!  ho!  “  No,  sir,”  continued  I,  “  my  friends  are 
the  ‘  Natives.’  I’ll  stick  to  the  Natives — a  fig  for  the  Scotch.” 

I  do  not  know  at  what  period  Bennett  wrote  this,  but  I  had  a 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


483 


rs^ne  recollection  of  it  in  ray  own  mind  which  is  confirmed  hy  the 
quotation  liei’e  given,  and  which  may  be  found  in  the  “  Life  and 
Writings  of  James  Gordon  Bennett,”  page  8. 

But  it  appears  that  he  is  not  only  a  “  Native,”  but  that  he  has 
their  principles — at  least  so  far  as  the  Bible  is  concerned.  You 
would  suppose  that  if  not  brought  up  in  one  of  our  public  schools 
himself,  he  would  recommend  the  system  of  these  schools  by  its 
results  in  his  own  conduct  and  character.  He  says  j 

“  I  was  educated  a  strict  Catholic,  but  it  was  an  enlightened  Catholic 
My  school  book  in  ray  boyish  days  was  the  Bible,  King  James’ 
Bible,  the  Protestant  Bible.  Yet  I  never  found  that  the  reading 
of  that  Bible  at  school  ever  left  any  bad  effects  behind.  On  the 
contrary  it  left  good  effects.  It  filled  the  young  mind  with  the 
glorious  images,  the  classic  language,  the  noble  ideas,  and  the  ever- 
living  principles  of  trxie  religion  from  its  upper  fountains.  There  can 
be  no  harm  to  a  good,  moral,  liberal  and  intelligent  Catholic  in 
h.aving  the  Bible,  yes,  even  the  Protestant  Bible  in  school.  The 
Bible  is  the  Bible  in  every  language,  in  e^'ery  translation,  in  every 
church,  ill  every  sect.  Bishop  Hughes,  committed  a  most  fatal 
mistake  ever  to  raise  that  little,  narrow,  bigoted  question  about 
different  translations  before  this  Christian  and  intelligent  community.” 
— Bennett^  April  1844. 

What  could  Mr.  Hiram  Ketchum  himself,  say  more  than  this  ? 
And  if  Bennett  be  an  example  of  the  moral  effects  of  such  training, 
what  stronger  reason  can  we  ha.ve  for  making  its  adoption  universal 
in  our  public  schools  ?  from  which,  by  the  by,  apart  from  particular 
translations,  I  never  asked  that  it  should  be  excluded. 

Bennett  has  pretended  that  his  assaults  on  me,  of  which  I  have 
two  or  three  dozen  still  in  reserve,  were  made  in  consequence  of  my 
conduct  at  Carroll  Hall,  and  then  only  for  the  public  good.  This  is 
entirely  false.  His  grossest  assaults  were  made  before  the  occurrence 
at  Carroll  Hall  took  place.  Until  then,  ever  by  his  own  showing,  I 
had  done  nothing  to  authorize  his  assaults  under  the  plea  of  publio 
good.  Yet,  my  admitted  innocence  did  not  protect  me.  But  why 
should  I  speak  of  myself?  Is  there  a  clergyman  of  any  denomina¬ 
tion  whom  he  has  spared  ?  My  amiable  and  saintly  predecessor,  even 
at  the  age  of  “70  years  and  upAV.ards,”  could  not  be  allowed  to 
esca])e. 

“  Bishop  Dubois  is  not  a  patriarch — he  does  not  effect  reforms  by 
his  example,  or  by  pastoral  advice  and  government.  No,  no.  He  is 
doing  Catholicity  a  service  as  the  devil  did  Job  a  service — by  his 

WANT  OF  ALL  EXAMPLE - by  llis  ENTIRE  MISGOVERNMENT - by  his 

capricious  and  ridiculous  tyranny.  .  .The  conduct  of  Bishop  Dubois 
has  long  given  great  offense  to  the  Catholics.  Capricious,  tyrannical, 
HEAR  )  'CSS,  OLD-WOMANISH  and  absurd,  he  has  reduced  and  is 
reducing  the  standard  of  Catholicity  to  a  standard  that  umuld  make 
Maria  Monk  pity  it,  and  Dr.  Brownlee  say  prayers  for  its  safety.” — 
Bennett.  Sept.  9th,  1836. 

Was  it  for  the  public  good  that  such  a  foul  attack  was  made  on  an 


484 


IRCIIBISHOP  HUGHES. 


amiable  and  aged  clergyman — whose  age  and  character  should  have 
shielded  him  ?  No,  no.  There  is  nothing  of  public  good  in  the  question. 
And  even  as  regards  the  Native  American  party,  whatever  its 
principles  were,  I  cannot  believe  that  they  breathed  the  spirit  of 
extermination  which  would  appear  from  Bennett’s  reports  of  their 
proceedings.  For  instance,  describing  the  sensation  produced  by  an 
appeal  in  one  of  their  meetings,  he  has,  “  (Loud  applause.) — Cries 
of  never — we’ll  die  first — we'll  kill  the  old  Pope  'and  every  one 
BELONGING  TO  HIM  FIRST.” — Bennett's  Herald  Nov.  25,  1843. 

I  have  underlined  the  words  as  making  the  spirit  which  Bennett 
ascribes  to  the  meeting.  It  is  probable  that  this  is  one  of  the  “  gems 
of  his  ribaldry,”  just  as  the  “  shillelahs”  were  at  Carroll  Hall.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  is  it  not  most  dangerous  to  find  him  on  the  day 
jtreceding  this,  as  if  his  object  were  to  urge  on  the  thoughtless  and 
the  wicked  to  bloodshed,  circulating  the  following  atrocious 
slander  ? 

“We  hear  it  whispered  ihvit  \\\q  Irish  Rejyeal  Abolitionists^ 'who 
have  been  organized  by  Bishop  Hughes  and  John  McKeon,  intend 
to  make  an  attack  upon  the  Young  Americans,  and  to  drive  them 
oat  of  the  Sixth.” — Bennett^  Nov.  2ith.,  1843. 

And  all  this,  w’^hilst  he  himself  had  borne  testimony  to  the  peace¬ 
able  conduct  of  the  Irish,  as  the  following  passage  will  show — 

“  The  German  population  alone  have  raised  a  voice  against  the 
movement  of  this  party,  and  str.ange  as  it  may  appear,  the  Irish 
adopted  citizens,  Avho  are  generally  the  first  in  the  field,  lie  as 
dormant  as  terrapins  in  December.” — Bennett.,  Oct.  24,  1843. 

Materials  of  this  kind  thicken  around  me  as  I  advance  in  my 
subject ;  but  I  shall  give  it  up  for  the  present,  out  of  sheer  disgust.  A 
free  press  is  essential  to  a  free  country.  And  wdiilst  we  know  that 
licentiousness  is  inseparable  from  freedom,  we  must  be  prepared  to 
bear  with  the  evil  for  the  sake  of  the  good.  I  think  this  letter  will 
teach  ei^en  Mr.  Bennett  that  editors  have  duties  as  well  as  rights  in 
conducting  a  free  press  ;  And  that  the  instrument  which  they  abuse 
by  licentiousness,  constitutes  after  all  the  most  j^OAverful  and  rigid 
tribunal,  at  Avhich  to  arraign  them,  for  perverting  it  from  its 
legitimate  use.  If  Bennett  had  public  motives  for  pouring  the 
torrent  of  his  slanders  upon  me  for  the  last  six  years,  I  trust  the 
same  motives  Avill  justify  me  for  vindicating  myself,  and  for  pointing 
out  the  dangers  to  which  everything  in  the  domestic  and  social  rela¬ 
tions  of  life  is  exposed  from  the  unscrupulous  abuse  of  a  free  press, 
by  an  editor  without  moral  principle.  Some  one  will  ask  me,  whether 
in  writing  as  I  have  done,  I  have  not  violated  charity.  My  answer 
is,  that  I  have  not.  I  admit  that  if  Bennett  were  a  man  avIio 
regarded  either  charity  or  truth,  in  his  attacks  upon  others ;  or  if 
those  attacks  were  without  their  influence  on  society  at  large,  then 
indeed,  I  know  that  I  should  be  violating  this  heavenly  virtue.  But 
Bennett  has  placed  himself  in  such  a  position  toivard  society,  that 
if  I  were  charitable  to  the  community,  I  must  seem  to  be  uncharitable 
toward  him.  Just  imagine  if  you  can  an  incarnation  of  demonism 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


485 


placing  itself  on  the  highways  of  ci^'ilizecl  society — ranging  with  pry¬ 
ing  inspection,  around  tlie  whole  circle  of  official,  commercial,  social, 
and  domestic  life;  just  as  the  freebooter  sweeps  the  ocean-horizon 
with  his  telescope,  looking  for  jirey;  imagine  that  incarnation,  rush¬ 
ing  on  its  victim  with  some  fatal  secret  of  guilt  or  misfortune,  (the 
wounds  of  which  might  lieal,  if  allowed  the  natural  privilege  of 
shade  and  silence) ;  Avhispering  that  fatal  secret  with  sardonic  triumph 
into  the  ears  of  those  who  thought  it  was  unknown,  and  then — ■ 
waving  to  and  fro  the  scorpion  lash  of  its  infernal  whip,  until  tears 
or  money,  or  both,  are  made  to  gush  forth  abundantly, — and  then  you 
will  have  conceived  my  idea  of  the  powers  that  may  be  exercised  by 
a  bad  man,  having  the  command  of  a  free  press.  You  say  Bennett 
is  too  contemptible  for  notice ;  then  answer  me  the  question,  why  is 
it  that  society  sustains  his  paper  ?  You  say  he  is  too  contemptible 
for  notice  ;  and  why  is  it  that  you  are  afraid  of  him  and  that  you 
would  rather  lose  |l00  any  time  than  incur  his  enmity — out  of 
regard,  if  not  for  yourself,  at  least  for  your  little  daugliter  who 
climbs  on  your  knee,  or,  as  O’Connell  expressed  it  in  the  poetry  of 
his  grief,  “  for  the  lamb  that  slept  in  your  bosom,” — knowing  very 
well,  as  you  do,  that  though  you  fear  not,  a  “  poisoned  arrow”  may 
be  prepared  for  them  when  you  least  expect  it.  You  say  that  he  is 
too  contemptible  for  notice ;  and  yet,  female  curiosity  will  read  his 
paper  to  see  what  he  has  to  say  about  others, — whilst  female  modesty 
blushes  and  trembles,  at  the  very  idea  of  itself  being  made  the 
object  of  his  remarks.  Let  society  show  a  healthy  tone  of  moral 
courage ;  let  those  who  by  mistake,  take  up  his  paper  in  the  morn¬ 
ing,  wash  their  hands  again,  before  going  to  breakfast ;  let  them 
cease  to  grow  pale  at  the  idea  of  having  incurred  Bennett’s  enmity, 
and  then,  if  you  tell  me  that  he  is  “too  contemptible  for  notice,”  I 
will  admit  yon  to  be  sincere,  and  a  believer  of  what  you  say.  But 
until  then  I  cannot  agree  with  you ;  and  I  assert,  whilst  I  do  not 
fear  him,  that  Bennett  is  not  too  contemptible  to  deserve  notice. 

I  have  now  submitted  the  entire  case  before  that  tribunal  to 
which  the  honored  man,  Avho  was  a  chaplain  to  the  Congress  of 
Independence  said  no  honest  citizen  need  appeal  in  vain  ;  namely, 
public  opinion,  as  it  exists  among  the  American  people.  I  ask  no 
partial  judgment,  and  I  do  not  anticijjate  that  one  of  prejudice  shall 
be  pronounced  against  me.  Here  are  the  facts,  every  man  Avho 
reads  can  understand  them.  But  I  think  that  at  this  moment,  and 
without  presumption  I  might  be  allowed  to  appeal  to  the  conductors 
of  the  public  press,  to  do  me  according  to  their  own  sense  of  right, 
simple  justice  in  the  premises.  Many  of  them  have  been  misled, 
and,  without  intending  it,  have  done  me  injustice.  I  have  had  no 
resentment,  because  I  have  not  considered  this  as  wilful  or  deliberate 
on  their  part.  But  if  the  time  has  come  when  circumstances  have 
compelled  me  to  meet  my  detractors,  is  it  too  much  to  expect  that 
they  Avill  record  the  sentence  which  their  feelings  of  honor  and  sense 
of  justice  may  dictate?  Is  it  too  much  to  expect  this  even  of 
“Native  Americans  ?”  if  they  are  worthy  of  the  proud  title  of  vhicb 


486 


AECnBISnOP  HUGHES. 


they  hoast,  but  which,  in  order  to  continue  a  proud  title,  must  be 
sustained  by  magnanimous  feelings  and  honorable  virtues. 

Allow  me  again,  sir,  in  conclusion,  to  quote  the  principle  of  moral 
philosophy  laid  down  at  the  head  of  this  letter,  namely — that  there 
is  nothing  mare  powerful  than  Falsehood  except  Truth  alone.  The 
w'hole  of  this  letter,  I  think,  establishes  the  soundness  of  this 
principle.  It  is  full  of  egotism,  I  know.  But  it  professes  to  be  so. 
It  professes  to  treat  of  Bishop  Hughes — the  assailed  of  a  thousand 
calumniators — and  of  James  Gordon  Bennett,  the  first  and  persever¬ 
ing  chief  of  those  assailants.  The  principles  represented  on  the  one 
side,  and  on  the  other,  have  both  triumphed,  the  one  in  the  just  but 
imperfect  provision  of  the  Legislature  of  New  York,  in  extending 
the  blessings  of  education  to  the  children  of  this  city — this  was 
the  triumph  of  truth.  The  other  has  triumphed,  also,  under  the 
auspices  of  Mr.  Bennett  and  his  colleagues,  and  (alas  for  the  honor 
of  our  country !)  may  be  read  in  gilt  letters  on  the  ruined  walls  of 
St.  Augustine’s :  “  The  Lord  Seeth.” 

I  remain,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  serv’t, 

^  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


THIRD  LETTER  OF  THE  RIG-HT  REVEREND 
BISHOP  HUGHES. 

Rejoinder  to  Col.  William  L.  Stone,  Editor  of  the  Commercial 

Advertiser. 

Respected  and  Dear  Sir, — On  unfolding  your  paper  of  the  6th 
inst.,  I  felt  gratified  at  beholding  your  letter  of  five  columns,  inas¬ 
much  as  it  seemed  to  furnish  the  evidence  of  restored  health.  This 
feeling  however  was  somewhat  damped  by  a  perusal  of  the  letter, 
which  furnished  to  my  mind  at  least  intrinsic  evidence  that  you  are 
still  far  from  being  well.  That,  however,  is  a  matter  which  I  leave 
in  the  hands  of  the  faculty.  I  have  read  your  long  letter.  I  find 
in  it  nothing  but  “  words,  words,  words.”  Indeed  it  seems  to  me 
that  I  have  refuted  most  of  it,  even  in  the  form  of  words  or  asser¬ 
tions  as  it  was  presented  at  various  times  by  Mr.  Hiram  Ketchura 
under  his  own  name.  There  are  but  a  very  few  passages  on  which 
I  think  it  worth  while  to  make  any  commentary.  It  is  true,  you 
repeat  some  of  the  assertions  which  have  been  made  by  the  editor  of 
the  “  morning  paper,”  and  which  have  in  his  case,  been  proved  by 
FACTS  to  have  been  falsehoods.  If  your  repetition  could  by  any  pro¬ 
cess  make  them  true,  then  indeed  I  should  consider  them  worthy  of 
notice. 

You  have  read  my  two  letters ;  you  have  seen  those  letters  com¬ 
posed  of  fiicts  and  arguments,  and  you  have  not  ventured  more  than 
Mr.  Bennett  to  deny  a  single  fact  set  forth  by  me  in  either.  You 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


4.87 


have  not  been  able  to  rebut  my  arguments  by  the  adduction  of  a 
single  opposite  fact;  and  so  long  as  you  leave  these  documents  in 
th.at  situation — so  long  will  your  letters  and  your  columns  and  your 
paragraphs  amount  to  “  words,  words,  words  ” — mere  assertion 
and  nothing  more.  Now,  sir,  between  facts  on  one  side  and  mere 
assertion  on  the  other,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  leaving  the  matter  to 
the  judgment  of  that  tribunal,  before  which  we  both  stand. 

I  will  but  just  present  for  your  consideration  a  few  reflections 
that  have  been  suggested  by  the  perusal  of  your  letter.  And  first 
of  all,  .allow  me  to  say  I  shall  pass  over  without  comment  the  many 
paragraphs  of  allusion  to  myself,  in  which  no  doubt  you  supjjosed 
you  were  accomplishing  fe.ats  of  s.atirical  sublimity.  That  you  should 
shrink  with  horror  from  any  kind  of  partnership  with  Bennett,  is 
precisely  what  I  anticipated,  and  precisely  what  caused  me  to  ex¬ 
press  my  regret,  that  you  should  have  selected  for  yourself,  in  his 
regard,  the  position  in  which  my  letters,  or  rather  your  own  course, 
exhibited  to  you.  You  say  : 

“  I  am  not  going  to  rail  at  Bennett,  or  to  express  my  indignant 
fastidiousness  at  the  association.  I  set  it  forth  as  a  specimen  of  what 
some  of  your  friends  have  styled  ‘  a  most  calm  and  dignified  appeal 
to  reason  instead  of  the  passions  and  prejudices  of  men.’  Your  ruse  in 
this  respect,  however,  exhibits  about  as  much  refined  taste,  to  say 
nothing  of  its  argument,  as  if  I  should  couple  your  name  with  that 
of  the  celebrated  Monroe  Edwards. 

“  What,  Kev.  sir,  do  you  shrink  from  the  association?  Well  you 
may,  and  I  will  not  make  it.  But  Monroe  Edwards  is  of  your  own 
church.  He,  like  yourself,  is  an  able  and  accomplished  man,  and  like 
yourself  has  he  complained  bitterly  of  the  attacks  made  upon  him 
in  the  newspapers.  Still,  I  will  not  persevere  in  the  association, 
although  this  community  will,  beyond  all  doubt,  justify  me  in  the 
introduction  of  a  parallelism  which  cannot  be  any  more  offensive  to 
you,  than  you  supposed  would  be  to  me  the  peculiar  connection  in 
which  you  presented  my  name  to  the  public,  or  should  I  even  repre¬ 
sent  the  Carroll  H.all  orator  and  the  tenant  of  Sing  Sing  as  resj^ect- 
ively  the  head  and  tail  of  the  Romish  Antichrist.” 

I  thank  you,  sir,  for  not.  pressing  this  association  too  closely.  And 
yet,  if  I  had  endorsed  the  notes  of  Mr.  Monroe  Edwards,  as  you  did 
those  of  Bennett,  I  do  not  see  how  I  could  escape  it.  You  under¬ 
stand  the  value  of  the  term  in  commercial  .affairs  and  its  moral 
bearing  is  somewh.at  analogous.  Besides,  you  cannot  plead  ignorance 
of  the  “  morning  paper  ”  from  which  you  copied.  Not  so  in  regard 
to  those  who  were  imposed  upon  by  Edwards.  Until  the  Jinale  of 
his  career,  very  honorable  and  intelligent  men  were  deceived  by 
him.  But  Bennett  had  not  this  advantage  over  you,  for  you  knew 
him  well.  If,  therefore,  I  had  been  unfortunate  enough  to  be  in  any 
manner  connected  with  such  a  man  as  Monroe  Edwards,  under  the 
same  circumstances  as  you  identified  yourself  with  the  “  Roman 
Catholic  editor  of  the  morning  paper,”  I  should  certainly  feel  morti¬ 
fied,  but  I  do  not  see  that  I  ought  to  be  ofiended,  at  being  reminded 


488 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  the  connection.  The  one  is  expatiating  the  guilt  of  his  bold  and 
iniquitous  career — the  other  is  expatiating  his  also  in  his  own  way. 
But  I  believe  that  in  reference  tj)  both,  your  opinion  and  mine  would 
exhibit  sufficient  agreement.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  picture  of 
each  may  be  found  drawn  with  sufficient  distinctness  in  the  lines  of 
the  poet. 

“  Who  steals  my  purse,  steals  trash ;  ’tis  something — nothing ; 

’Twas  mine,  ’tis  liis,  and  has  been  slave  to  thousands; 

But  he  that  filches  from  me  mj’-  good  name, 

Robs  me  of  that  which  not  enriches  him. 

And  makes  me  jmor  ‘  indeed.” 

Which  of  the  characters  here  imagined  by  the  poet,  is  more  de¬ 
spicable,  it  is  not  difficult  to  ascertain.  But  you  say  Monroe  Edwards 
is  a  Catholic.  This  may  be.  The  Catholic  religion  has  furnished  as 
bad  men  as  any  other ;  still,  I  wish  to  inquire  whether  you  make 
this  assertion  of  your  own  knowledge  or  not.  I  hope  you  have  not 
again  trusted  to  some  “  morning  paper  ” — but  at  any  rate,  it  is  a 
rule  in  logic  that  what  is  gratuitously  asserted  may  be  gratuitously 
denied.  I  deny,  therefore,  the  assertion  that  Monroe  Edwards  is  a 
Catholic,  and  I  call  on  you  for  the  proofs. 

It  was  a  waste  of  words  for  you  to  undertake  proving  that  I  made 
a  speech  at  Carroll  Hall.  But  it  was  not  ingenuous  on  your  part  to 
suppress  or  overlook  the  fact,  that  you,  among  others,  had  endea¬ 
voured  to  bi'ing  the  representatives  of  the  people  under  the  iniquitous 
obligation  of  refusing  to  grant  the  petition  however  just  it  might 
be,  of  those  wlio  wished  an  alteration  in  the  School  Laws.  This  was 
“  the  ungenerous  trick  ”  to  which  I  lately  called  your  attention.  It 
was  you  and  your  colleagues  who  first  mingled  religion  with  politics 
in  that  question.  And  whilst  you  recommended  those  exclusively 
who  should  oppress  one  portion  of  the  people,  my  recommendation 
was  for  those  who  should  do  “justice  to  all  classes.” 

As  to  your  dissertation  on  the  various  systems  of  common  school 
education,  I  have  very  little  to  say.  My  own  preference  would  be 
for  a  system  which,  if  it  were  iiracticable,  might  allow,  without  in¬ 
terfering  with  or  infringing  the  provisions  of  the  law,  each  chmomina- 
tion  to  instruct  its  own  children  in  its  own  peculiar  views  of  religion. 
But  if  this  cannot  be  done,  then  for  my  own  part,  I  am  resigned  to 
any  system  in  which  the  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  shall 
be  secured  to  the  children  of  each  denomination,  equally.  This  is 
all,  and  I  presume  that  in  this,  unless  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
made  a  great  blunder  in  allowing  liberty  of  conscience  at  all,  you 
will  find  nothing  to  cavil  at.  As  to  the  Bible  in  the  common  schools, 

I  see  no  great  objection  to  it,  provided  it  be  in  conformity  with  the 
principles  just  laid  down.  If  you  force  the  Catholic  Bible  on  Protes¬ 
tant  children  against  their  will,  you  inflict  an  injiu-y,  hi  my  opinidii,  on 
the  religious  rights  of  those  children  and  their  parents  ;  and  the  injury 
is  just  as  great  a  violation  of  right,  as  if  you  force  the  Protestant  Bible 
on  Catholic  children  against  their  will,  or  that  of  their  parents.  It 
seems  lo  me  that  you  will  hardly  question  the  correctness  of  this  view, 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


4S9 


and  if  yon  do  not,  then  there  is  nothing  between  ns  to  dispute  about. 
x\s  to  the  Protestant  version,  to  the  examination  of  whicli  you  invite 
niy  attention,  I  think  it  would  be  a  work  of  supererogation.  Or,  if 
you  are  determined  on  tliat  subject,  you  will  j)lease  to  begin  by  re¬ 
futing  the  very  many*  learned  and  able  critics  of  the  Protestant 
Communion,  who  have  rejected  the  version  of  King  James,  and 
adopted  or  recommended  others,  for  reasons  which  they  allege,,  and 
which  you  can  attempt  to  refute,  if  you  please. 

You  seem  disposed  to  hold  me  accountable  for  wh.atever  may  be 
said  in  the  papers  that  are  nomin.ally  or  really  Catholic,  such  as  the 
.and  others.  My  last  letter  ought  to  satisfy  yoii 
that  I  regard  “  a  free  ]n’ess  as  essential  to  the  well-being  of  a  free 
country.”  Accordingly  I  exercise  no  censorship  of  aiithority  over 
these  or  any  other  papers,  each  of  them  has  its  own  editor,  and  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  wish  him  to  enjoy  the  same  rights,  subject 
to  the  same  responsibilities,  which  are  enjoyed  by  the  editor  of  the 
Commercial  Advertiser .  If  he  violates  the  honorable  trust  reposed 
in  him  by  the  public,  by  deceiving  those  who  expect  truth  from  the  • 
conductors  of  a  public  press,  then  let  him  be  held  accountable.  The 
oiisly  paper  I  have  any  connection  with  is  the  Freeman'' s  Journal,  and 
no  man  can  find  anything  of  party  politics  in  its  columns.  The  other 
papers,  so  far  as  I  know,  profess  to  take  an  interest  in  politics  ;  and 
I  maintain,  without  expressing  any  opinion  on  the  propriety  of  so 
doing,  that  their  editors  have  the  same  legal  right  that  you  liave. 

In  reference  to  the  very  disingenuous  view  which  you  give  of  my 
efforts  to  prevent  any  collision  through  the  excitement  produced  by  re¬ 
cent  events,  you  certainly  have  overlooked  what  could  not  have  es¬ 
caped  your  attention,  if  ymur  health  had  been  perfectly  restored. 
My  st.atement  on  that  subject  was  to  the  effect  that  I  had  used  every 
exertion  to  prevent  that  portion  of  tbe  population  under  my  spiritual 
charge,  froni  being  driven  into  comhinat'ion,  under  the  plea  of  neces¬ 
sary*  self-defence.  This  you  turn  most  disingenuously  into  a  mean¬ 
ing  which  I  never  could  have  intended — as  if,  I  claimed  the  power 
of  keeping  the  peace  or  creating  riot  at  my  own  option. 

•This  ])erversion  of  statements  which  the  public  understand  per¬ 
fectly  well,  does  you  no  credit.  A  true  Christian  judges  charitably 
of  the  intention  of  the  others,  whenever  the  opportunity  is  presented, 
without  doing  violence  to  the  evidence  of  language  and  of  facts. 
And,  to  suppress  circumstances,  to  distort  facts,  to  pervert  language, 
in  order  to  bring  out  a  deceptions,  false  and  uncharitable  interpreta¬ 
tion,  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  of  a  true  Christian  man. 
The  man  whose  breast  is  pure  is  slow  to  suspect  except  on  strong 
evidences.  And  to  behold  everything  with  a  jaundiced  eye  proves 
no  change  in  tlie  object,  but  rathef  the  diseased  condition  of  him 
who  looks  upon  it. 

What  I  have  just  said  Avill  explain  your  misconception  and  mis- 
Btatements  in  reg.ard  to  my  official  relations  with  the  Church,  as 
clashing  with  my  ])riv.ate  obligations  to  my  country.  It  is  a  calum¬ 
ny  which  even  the  intolerance  of  the  British  Government  has  been 


490 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


at  last  obliged  to  acknowledge.  It  is  a  calumny  W'hich  cannol  be  ut¬ 
tered  except  in  contempt  of  the  laws  of  our  own  freer  and  happier 
republic.  It  is  a  calumny  Avdiich  no  educated  man  will  believe,  and 
to  which  no  educated  man  ought  to  give  utterance.  If  it  were  not 
a  calumny,  its  legitimate  consequence  would  be  to  deprh^e  Catholic* 
in  this  country  of  the  right  of  discharging  any  civil  trust,  whereas 
the  Constitution  of  the  country  acknowledges  them  as  entitled 
equally  with  their  fellow-citizens  to  fill  any  office  to  which  they  may 
be  .a})pointed. 

In  relation  to  the  lines  quoted  by  you  from  the  Freeman's  Journal 
as  indicative  of  conspiracy  and  treason,  I  can  only  assure  you  that  I 
had  never  seen  them  in  that  paper,  until  your  reference  directed  my 
attention  to  the  subject.  I  confess  that  in  the  garbled  form  with  the 
underlining  of  particular  words  and  the  evil  purpose  wliich  they  re¬ 
ceive  from  the  suggestions  of  your  mind,  I  saw  them,  as  quoted  by 
you,  with  regret  and  displeasure.  But,  on  referring  to  the  poetic 
effusion  from  which  they  are  taken,  I  found  nothing  treasonable  in 
'the  purjiose,  nor  defective  in  the  poetry.  You  are  aware  that  from 
the  time  of  old  Horace,  “poets  and  painters”  have  claimed  a' id  been 
allowed  by  all  civilized  nations  a  “  license”  peculiar  to  themselves. 
It  is  on  this  account,  that  when  the  young  genius  of  the  land  jilumed 
its  poetic  wings  during  the  recent  political  contest  in  this  city,  I 
never  complained,  albeit  the  sentiments  were  such  as  a  rigid  prose 
writer  like  you  would  be  sure  to  condemn.  Let  us  give  a  couple  of 
small  specimens.  The  author  of  the  following  lines,  as  we  read  in 
the  Native  American  Paper,  where  they  were  published,  is  Mr.  De  Le 
Reo.  They  breathe  patriotism  as  well  as  poetry  : 

****** 

“  Your  wives  shall  praise  you  for  your  deeds. 

Your  sweethearts  hug  you  in  their  arms, 

If  once  you  pluch  these  foreign  weeds 
That  have  been  growing  on  your  farms. 

“  Just  cast  them  out  upon  the  road 
And  never  let  them  in  your  lot, 

You’ve  found  they  were  a  heavy  load. 

Then  dump  and  send  them  all  to  pot.” 

But  to  show  that  iioetic  genius  is  no  monopoly  among  “  Native 
Americans,”  we  have  the  following  specimen  ascribed  in  the  same 
paper  to  Mr.  Job  Haskell. 

******* 

“  And  did  those  mighty  heroes  intend  their  sons  for  slaves. 

To  bow  to  foreign  bishops  who  crossed  the  ocean’s  waves? 

No  !  a  voice  comes  booming  o’er  our  vast  extended  plain, 

March  on  my  brave  Americans,  if  thomanda  should  be  slain. 

"  And  shall  our  Common  Schools,  the  Republic’s  strongest  hope 
Be  wielded  bv  deceitful  Priests,  a  Bishop,  or  the  Pope  ? 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


491 


No  !  answers  free-born  millions ;  give  them  a  traitor's  grave. 

Advance,  advance,  Americans — yonr  boasted  bulwarks  save. 

“  Loud  sounds  the  sacred  bugle,  the  American  youth  dash  on. 

Base  foreigners  shall  bite  the  ground — our  war-cry,  W  ashiugton,”  &c 

Now,  sir,  in  both  of  these  it  might  seem  to  a  dull  proser  that  very 
objectionable  ideas  and  purposes  were  inculcated.  You  will  cer¬ 
tainly  think  so.  But  I  throw  myself  back  on  the  old  canon  of  li¬ 
cense  that  has  always  been  granted  to  j)oets  and  painters.  And  so 
I  interpret  the  words  “  if  thousands  should  be  slain”  ;  they  do  not 
signify  as  you  would  imagine  literally  slaying,  but  only  poetic  slaugh¬ 
ter.  So  also  “  give  them  a  traitor’s  grave”  means  a  grave  of  poetry. 
And  “  base  foreigners  shall  bite  the  ground”  is  to  be  interpreted  in 
the  same  way. 

To  give  you  an  idea  of  the  spirit  of  the  elfusion  from  which  you 
have  quoted,  by  insinuating  a  meaning  w^hich  the  poet  never  could 
have  intended,  let  me  quote  to  you  the  first  two  stanzas,  which  seem 
to  be  in  reference  to  the  freedom  and  independence  ot  the  country  : 

“  lliey’re  graven  on  the  nation’s  heart — 

The  lofty  deeds  of  yore. 

When  Tyranny,  with  trailing  dart. 

Shrank  wailing  from  our  shore — 

They’re  blazoned  on  our  banner,  too. 

And  every  crystal  star 
Illumes  each  serf’s  long-shrouded  view, 

And  terror  strikes  each  Czar. 

“  And  on  this  consecrated  soil 
Would  Persecution’s  hand 
Tear  down  the  patriot’s  work  of  toil — 

Place  on  our  flag  a  brand  ? 

Unsullied  yet,  that  flag  shall  wave — 

That  fane  unshaken  stand. 

While  Freedom  wield’s  a  two-edged  glaive 
To  curb  each  bigot  band.” 

****** 

These  are  the  opening  stanzas,  and  suggest  the  whole  spirit  of  the 
piece.  It  may  have  been  written,  for  what  I  know,  by  a  foreigner, 
or  what  the  Chinese  would  call  an  outside  barbarian  ;  but  then,  we 
are  a  civilized  people,  and  we  must  extend  to  him,  if  he  court  the 
muses,  the  same  license  that  we  do  to  our  own  poets. 

It  was,  sir,  much  to  be  regretted  that  you  had  not  Mr.  Ketchum 
at  your  elbow,  whilst  you  were  wi’iting  your  letter.  For  there  is 
nothing  so  injurious  to  a  cause,  as  a  discrepancy  or  direct  contradic¬ 
tion  between  the  witnesses  who  are  called  upon  to  support  it.  Tliere 
are  several  such  discrepancies  in  your  letter.  But  I  shall  call  your 
attention  to  only  two  out  of  the  whole  number.  Your  words  in  one 
place  are  : — “  I  had  almost  said  we  would  rather  see  them  (Protest¬ 
ant  children)  Papists,  than  that  an  early  infidel  bias  should  be  given 
to  their  tender  minds.” 


492 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


This,  sir,  is  a  sentiment  which  does  yon  honor,  but  at  the  same 
time  shows  how  far  you  are  behind  the  liberality  of  your  own  age 
and  denomination.  One  of  your  most  distinguished  “  Bishops” — 
Dr.  Spring — said  in  his  speech  before  the  Common  Council — ^wheu 
I  uttered  sentiments  somewhat  similar  to  yours  : 

“  The  gentleman  has  sought  to  prove  that  the  present  system  leads 
to  infidelity.  Now,  sir,  let  no  man  think  it  strange,  that  I  (Dr. 
Spring)  should  prefer  infidelity  to  Catholicism.  Even  a  mind  as 
acute  as  Voltaire’s  came  to  the  conclusion,  that  if  there  was  no  al¬ 
ternative  between  infidelity  and  the  dogmas  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
he  should  choose  infidelity.  I  would  choose,  sir,  in  similar  cir¬ 
cumstances,  TO  BE  AN  INFIDEL  TO-MORROWu” 

If  the  legal  advocate  of  the  Public  Schools,  already  alluded  to,  had 
been  near  you  when  you  wrote  your  letter,  he  would  not  have  al¬ 
lowed  you  to  2:)ut  yourself  in  such  direct  contradiction  to  the  Rev. 
gentleman  who  gave  utterance  to  the  liberal  sentiment.  Again,  you 
write  as  folloivs : 

“  The  system  of  jmblic  schools,  thus  established  in  this  city,  was 
working  admirably.  It  was  the  pride  and  glory  of  our  city,  and  its 
supeiintendence  the  occiuiation  of  our  most  virtuous  and  intelligent 
citizens.  The  intelligent  infidel  even  acquiesced  in  it.  Sectarianism 
was  hushed,  and  bigotry  'was  asleej),  until,  in  an  evil  hour,  you  ap¬ 
peared  to  trouble  the  waters.” 

Now,  sir,  referring  to  the  same  debate,  we  have  Mr.  Ketch  urn’s 
own  authority  for  stating  that  long  before  I  appeared  or  agitated 
the  tranquil  waters  of  the  Public  system,  that  system  had  been  as¬ 
sailed  by  petitions  from  “  the  Episcopalians,” — petitions  from  “  the 
Dutch  Reformed  Church” — jietitions  from  “  the  Methodist  Church,” 
petitiens  from  “  the  Baptist  Church,”  and  from  “  the  Catholic 
Church,”  “  time  and  again,”  to  use  his  own  elegant  expression  !  If, 
then,  all  these  denominations  Avere  so  dissatisfied  with  the  public 
school  system,  that  they  petitioned  respectively  against  it,  you  can 
judge  for  yourself  how  unfounded  is  that  lAOjiularity  which  you  as¬ 
cribe  to  it,  until  I,  as  you  say,  began  to  find  fault  Avith  the  system. 
Supjiose  all  these  denominations  ojiposed  to  it,  as  Mr.  Ketcham  as¬ 
serts,  then  I  should  like  to  knoAv  Avho  were  its  friends — except  those 
who  sympathise  Avith  Dr.  Spring  in  the  sentiment  Avhich  he  expres¬ 
ses  Avith  so  much  naivete  and  candor.  These  are  a  feAV  of  the  incon¬ 
sistencies  and  contradictions  to  which  I  have  alluded.  But  there 
are  other  expressions  also,  such  as  “  a  predominant  national  religion 
above  the  Iravs,”  that  sound  strangely  in  the  ears  of  those  Avho  re¬ 
gard  the  constitution  c,f  the  country  as  being  the  all-pj'otecting  in¬ 
strument  a])pointed  for  the  protection  of  religious  as  A\mll  as  civil 
rights.  And  if  there  be  “  a  predominant  national  religion”  above 
that  instrument,  it  Avould  suggest  the  inference  that  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  itself  is  under  its  protection.  At  all  events,  the  language  is 
novel  in  this  counti-y,  and  Avill  give  rise  to  some  strange  reflections. 

This  is  all  I  ha\  e  deemed  it  necessary  to  say  in  reference  to  your 
letter.  You  have  net  opposed  one  sinple  fact  to  those  Avhich  I  have 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


493 


laid  down  in  my  two  former  communications.  Yon  have  given,  in¬ 
deed,  five  columns  of  words,  in  which  there  is  much  vague  declama¬ 
tion,  much  personal  abuse,  which  I  shall  not  notice ;  much  ungene¬ 
rous  suspicion  and  unwarranted  insinuation,  much  of  assertion  ;  but 
from  under  the  whole  mountain  of  words  thus  piled  together,  there 
comes  forth  scarcely  a  mouse* of  sense  or  argument.  Neither  do  i 
pretend  to  have  dealt  in  argument  in  this  letter.  I  have  merely  sug¬ 
gested  a  few  considerations  for  your  reflection  and  that  of  the  pub¬ 
lic,  as  they  rose  in  mind,  on  the  perusal  of  your  letter.  Having  done 
so,  allow  me  to  conclude  by  expressing  ^  the  hope  that  your  health 
may  be  soon  restored  and,  as  the  Spaniards  would  say,  that  you 
may  live  a  thousand  years. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  great  respect, 
Your  humble  and  obedt.  servt. 

JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop  of  New  York. 

June  7,  1844. 


FOURTH  LETTER  OF  BISHOP  HUGHES. 

“Be  severe  when  animadverting  upon  evil  practices  or  dangerous  principles,  but  be 

HOT  ABUSIVE,  FOR  THAT  ONLY  DISGRACES  YOURSELF.” 

My  Dear  Colonel, — The  above  is  taken  from  a  Native  Ameri¬ 
can  jtaper  as  a  hint  to  editors,  and  I  admire  the  humanity  of  the 
writer  if  his  object  was  to  suggest  to  you  in  a  delicate  manner  the 
great  fault  of  your  letters,  in  the  hope,  no  doubt,  that  for  your  own 
sake  you  would  avoid  its  repetition.  You  must  be  aware  that  I  had 
no  other  purpose  in  writing,  except  to  vindicate  myself  from  the 
charges  which  you  and  Mr.  Bennett  have  been  foremost  to  circulate, 
and  wdiich  I  have  called  upon  you  to  prove.  I  had  suj^posed  that 
the  justice  of  public  opinion  wordd  allow  no  man  in  this  country, 
to  be  abridged  of  that  fair  reputation  to  which  an  unexceptionable 
conduct  entitles  him. 

If  I  have  organized  my  flock  into  a  political  party— i/  I  have  at¬ 
tempted  to  keep  up  national  distinctions  in  the  community — if  I  have 
made  appeals  to  religious  prejudices — if  I  have  sought  to  expel  the 
Bible  from  the  public  schools — ifl  have  solicited  the  blackening  of 
the  public  school  books — if  I  have  allied  myself  with  any  political 
party  or  individual — if  I  have  done  any  action  or  uttered  any  senti¬ 
ment  unworthy  of  a  Christian  Bishop  and  an  American  citizen,  you 
and  Mr.  Bennett  who  have  accused  me  of  all  these  things,  must  now 
either  furnish  the  proof  or  stand  before  the  community  as  false  ac¬ 
cusers.  I  assert  positively  as  facts  that  I  have  done  none  of  the 
things  here  mentioned.  If  I  have,  you  must  be  in  possession  of  the 
facts  which  prove  it. .  This,  properly  speaking,  constitutes  the  only 
question  in  controversy  betAveen  us.  I  apjieal  to  the  justice  of  public 
opinion  on  all  these  chai-ges,  and,  nothing  but  facts  will  be  sufficient 


494 


ARCHBISHOP  HtTGHES. 


to  dispi’ove  my  denial  of  them.  I  have  called  on  you  for  the  facts 
in  reference  to  any  one  of  these  charges,  and  it  appears,  so  far,  that 
you  have  no  facts  to  produce.  Then,  sir,  your  acciisations  fall  to  the 
ground,  like  those  of  your  degraded  leader — “  the  Roman  Catholic 
editor  of  a  morning  paper.”  In  my  first  letter  I  laid  down  all  the 
propositions  that  were  necessary  to  cover  my  whole  character  and 
conduct  as  facts  which  are  to  be  overthrown,  if  assailed  at  all,  not 
by  sophistry  or  argument,  but  by  other  facts,  with  witnesses,  which 
will  prove  them  untrue.  therefore^  James  Gordon  Bennett^ 

William  L.  Stone  and  ye  other  deceivers  of  the  public^  stand  forth  and 
meet  Bishop  Hnghes.  But  then^  come  forth  in  no  quibbling  capacity ; 
come  forth  as  honest  men.,  as  trxie  American  citizens,  loith  truth  in  your 
hearts  and  candor  on  your  lips.  I  knout  you  can  write  xvell — and  can 
multiply  words  and  misrepresent  truth — this  is  not  the  thing  that  will 
serve  yon  noiv.  Come  forth  with  your  facts.  Bishop  Hughes  places 
himself  in  the  simple  panoply  of  an  honest  man  before  the  American 
people.  He  asks  no  favor — but  he  simply  asks  whether  the  opinion  of 
Bishop  White  is  true,  that  with  the  American  people  no  man  can  be  put 
down  by  calumny  ?  Bring,  therefore,  your  facts  to  disprove  the  forego¬ 
ing  nega  tive  propositions.  Bishop  Hughes  pledges  himself  to  prove  those 
that  are  affirmative,  if  you,  or  any  decent  man  with  his  signature,  will 
deny  them.  [See  the  propositions  in  my  letter  to  Mayor  Harper.] 

Have  you  denied  the  truth  of  one  of  those  propositions  ?  Have 
you  stated  one  solitary  fact  opposed  to  their  truth?  Not  one  !  If, 
therefore,  these  propositions  be  true,  as  I  contend  they  are,  and  as 
you  have  not  disproved  by  any  fact,  then,  sir,  I  am  in  a  position  to 
say  to  you  also — you  “  have  borne  false  witness  against  your  neigh¬ 
bor.” 

Ah  !  but  you  say  I  made  a  speech  at  Carroll  Hall,  and  you  ask 
whether  Bennett’s  report  of  it  was  “  a  burlesque,  a  caricature,  a  false 
representation  ?”  I  answer,  it  was  all  three.  If  you  will  please  to 
turn  to  the  Vth,  8th,  and  9th  pages  of  my  second  letter,  you  -will  see 
the  joroo/’ that  it  was  all  three.  You  will  perceive  that  when'  Ben¬ 
nett  denied  this,  the  falsehood  of  the  denial  was  then  impressed  on 
the  brazen  forehead  of  its  author.  Yet  this  falsehood  of  his,  you 
endorse  with  your  name.  I  trust,  therefore,  you  will  not  consider 
hereafter  an  association  of  your  own  choice  with  this  man  equally 
ofteusive  to  you,  as  if  you  had  been  made  the  dupe  of  JMonroe 
Edwards.  You  say  that  “  I  represent  Bennett’s  report  as  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  all  my  positions.”  Here  a^ain,  sir,  you  are  led  into  a  ])er- 
version  of  truth  by  too  close  an  imitation  of  the  “morning  editor.” 
What  I  said  was  not  the  burlesque  report  merely,  but,  the  whole 
“  Herald  of  the  next  morning.”  If  you  refer  to  page  10  of  my  second 
letter,  you  will  perceive  that  Bennett  fiilsified  truth  in  the  spirit  of 
the  articles,  in  the  adjective,  in  the  noim,  and  in  the  preposition,  that 
he  falsified  truth  in  what  he  sup])ressed  respecting  my  speech  at 
Carroll  Hall.  How  then  can  you,  unless  you  are  ambitious  of  being 
associated  with  Bennett,  re2)eat  the  statements  which  stand  as  false¬ 
hoods  proven  against  him,  when  they  Avere  first  uttered  ? 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


495 


You  identify  the  report  of  that  speech,  as  it  is  found  in  the  Free¬ 
man's  Journal,  the  Herald,  and  i\\Q  Advertiser.  Sii’,  if  I  could  sip^pose 
you  competent  to  Avi-ite,  at  the  time  your  letter  was  penned,  I  should 
regard  this  statement  as  something  woi'se  than  disingenuous.  You 
had  seen  my  letter  as  addressed  to  yourself.  In  that  letter  you  saw 
that,  whether  rightly  reported  or  not,  I  admitted,  and  held  n^vself 
responsible  for  the  speech  in  Carroll  Hall,  as  reported  in  the  Free- 
maids  Journal,  “  but  not  as  it  is  found  with  the  waving  of  skivtelahs 
in  Bennett’s  Herald^"'  and,  I  may  now  add,  the  Commercwl  Advertiser. 
It  suited  your  purpose  to  copy  from  the  Herald,  and  it  is  too  late  noAV 
for  you  to  pretend  that  the  association  dishonors  you.  Yet,  sir,  I  shall 
not  put  you  in  the  same  situation  in  regard  to  this,  in  which  I  placed 
Mr..  Bennett.  I  shall  not  apply  to  you  the  moral  force  of  truth  Avhich 
left  such  indelible  ch.aracters  impressed  upon  his  brow,  although  so 
far  as  it  regards  the  new  theory  of  stimrnavtology,  it  Avould  have 
been  ray  interest,  or  rather  the  interest  of  the  science,  to  have  se¬ 
lected  you  for  the  experiment,  as  being  a  more  impressihle  subject. 
I  need  hardly  say  to  you,  that  the  scientific  and  technical  term  stim- 
mautolopy  means  in  common  language,  nothing  more  than  the  science 
of  self-branding. 

I  perceive,  hoAvever,  that  you  m.ake  a  distinction.  You  admit  it 
possible  that  Bennett’s  report  was  unfair,  that  there  was  ^sappressio 
veri,  but  you  deny  that  this  “  mars  the  sense and  Avith  a  hardi¬ 
hood  on  Avhich  your  great  leader  Avould  not  have  A^entured,  you  still 
insist  upon  its  being  verbatim  et  literatim.  On  reading  this  assertion 
of  yours,  I  should  be  tempted  to  treat  its  author  in  the  m.anner  he 
deseiwes,  if  it  Avere  not  that  you  are  said  to  be  indisposed,  and  so 
far  entitled  to  consideration.  But  >n  the  other  hand,  the  fierce  spirit 
and  harsh,"  not  to  say  insulting,  style  of  your  letters  a])pear  to  be 
little  in  harmony  Avith  the  sober  and  unimpassioned  feelings  that  are 
most  appropriate  to  a  sick  chamber.  I  am  obliged,  hoAvever,  to  re¬ 
gard  them  as  yours,  for  the  signature,  if  not  the  composition,  is  yonr 
property  ;  and  it  is  not  for  lue  to  say,  whether  you  make  the  best 
use  of  it,  Avhen  you  endorse  for  Bennett,  or  inscribe  it  at  the  foot  of 
such  letters  as  have  lately  appeared  in  your  name. 

You  have  seen  that  in  the  “  burlesque”  report  and  comment. aries 
of  Bennett,  there  Avere  not  only  omissions  of  the  true,  but  also  addi¬ 
tions  of  the  false.  Supposing  that  from  a  judge’s  charge  to  the  jury, 
you  Avere  to  select  out  of  fifteen  paragraj^hs,  only  tAvo  or  three,  and 
these  apparently  unaccountable  in  the  absence  of  the  reasoning  .and 
laAV  that  had  gone  before,  supposing  you  gave  to  these  three  para- 
grajdis  a  malign.ant  interpretation  directly  the  reverse  of  Avh.at  the 
reasoning  of  the  suppressed  passages  Avas  calculated  to  convey,  would 
not  the  public  be  justified  in  calling  your  pretended  report  a  “  bur¬ 
lesque  ”  and  a  “  caricature  ”  of  the  judge’s  clnarge  ?  Ah  !  but  s.ay 
you  the  same  Avords,  as  far  as  they  are  reported,  are  found  in  both, 
and  “  the  svppressio  veri  ”  does  not  “  mar  the  sense.”  Admir.able  critic 
of  the  Commercial  Advertiser!  To  illustrate  the  absurdity  oi' this 
rule  of  criticism,  I  will  mention  a  Biblical  anecdote,  Avhich  I  have 


49G 


ARCnBISHOP  HUGHES. 


read,  I  forget  where,  but  with  which  yoxr,  as  a  man  of  learning  and 
experience,  are  no  doubt  well  acquainted.  It  had  reference  to  an 
edition  of  King  James’  Bible,  in  which  the  negative  particle  of  what 
you  call  the  seventh  precept  of  the  decalogue  was  omitted.  You 
will  contend  that  this  suppressio  veri  does  not  mar  the  sense  !  And 
yet  the  ditierence  between  the  real  report  in  the  decalogue  and  the 
false  report  of  the  printer,  had  the  effect  to  command  the  very  crime 
it  was  intended  to  forbid.  Now,  every  word  in  the  false  report  was 
to  be  found  in  tlie  true  report.  But  there  was  one  little  word  of 
only  three  letters  found  in  the  true  report  which  was  not  in  the 
false ;  and  this  may  illustrate  how  far  the  siqopressio  veri  may  and 
does  “  mar  the  sense.”  When  Bennett  asserted  that  the  report  in 
the  Freemanh  Journal,  and  that  in  his  vile  sheet  were  verbatim  et 
literatim  the  same,  he  knew  that  he  wms  writing  falsehood,  and  the 
public  Avill  know  that  you,  should  you  venture  to  repeat  it  again, 
will  be  writing,  if  you  have  not  already  written,  under  the  same 
consciousness.  I  repeat  Avhat  I  have  already  stated  to  the  public, 
“  that  my  speech  at  Carroll  Hall  rvas  not  the  speech  of  a  politician. 
It  was  the  speech  of  a  man  who  has  some  reverence  for  the  dignity 
of  human  nature.  It  was  the  speech  of  an  American  who  knows 
and  prizes  the  rights  secured  by  the  American  Constitution,  which 
he  would  not  wish  to  see  violated  in  any  denomination  of  Christians 
more  than  in  his  own.”  Read  that  speech  as  it. is  in  the  Freeman’s 
Journal.  Is  there  any  appeal  to  foreigners  ?  to  Irish  ?  to  Catholics  ? 
Politicians  ?  or  to  any  class  of  beings,  except  so  far  as  a  principle 
of  clear,  indisputable  right  and  justice  could  be  an  appeal  to  the  un¬ 
derstanding,  and  the  heart  of  every  honest  man  ? 

The  meeting  at  Carroll  Hall  was  for  promoting  education.  There 
is  clear  evidence  on  record,  that  at  different  times  wdien  some  of  the 
speakers  would  introduce  politics,  I  declared  to  them  positively,  that 
the  moment  politics  were  introduced,  I  should  quit  their  meetings. 
Why  wms  it,  then,  that  the  question  forced  itself  upon  us  ?  This, 
sir,  Avill  bring  out  the  true  facts  of  the  case,  which  you  and  your  col¬ 
leagues  have  labored  so  diligently  to  conceal.  You  first  fettered  the 
candidates  of  one  party,  and  extorted  from  them  a  pledge,  that  (no 
matter  wdiat  might  he  the  corruptions  and  abuses  of  the  Public  School 
Society,  no  matter  what  might  he  the  oppressions  which  that  close 
corporation  might  inflict  upon  a  portion  of  the  people  :)  the  candi¬ 
dates  should  go  to  the  legislature,  if  sent  at  all,  bound  not  to  dare 
touch,  or  alter,  or  amend,  or  improve  that  corporate  system,  in  Avhich 
the  peojxle  had  no  voice  or  right  of  election.  Was  it  not  shameful 
that  you  should  take  away  from  the  representatives  of  the  'whole  com¬ 
munity,  in  the  legislature,  the  power  to  remove  injustice,  if  injustiee 
should  be  found  ?  But  not  satisfied  with  this  enslavement  of  the 
candidates  of  one  party,  you  attempted  to  put  manacles  on  the  can¬ 
didates  of  the  other  also  ;  and  you  did  find  some  of  them  willing,  in¬ 
stead  of  being  the  free  and  fair  representatives  of  the  whole  people, 
to  go  to  Albany  as  the  bondsmen  wearing  the  yoke  and  livery  of 
the  Public  School  Corporation.  It  was  the  intention  of  those  wh<j 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


497 


wished  a  change  in  the  Public  School  system,  to  lay  their  grievances 
before  the  ensuing  legislature,  and  to  petition  for  their  redress.  What 
would  have  been  the  use  of  their  petitioning,  if  i/tey,  too,  had  voted 
for  men  bound,  especially  bound,  to  deny  even  the  justice  of  their 
prayer  ?  Thus,  the  decision  of  their  case,  not  by  their  choice  nor  by 
mine,  but  by  your  artful  arrangements,  was  anticipated,  and  brought 
by  you  into  a  position  in  which  they  must  either  co-operate  ivith  you^ 
in  perpetuating  the  grievance  of  which  they  had  to  conpdain,  or  else 
separate  themselves,  and  show  that  they  at  least,  would  not  know- 
ingly  vote  against  their  own  right  to  seek  redress.  My  speech  was 
made  simply  to  point  out  the  trap  which  had  been  laid  for  them.  It 
was  simply  to  tell  them  that  they  could  not  expect  justice  in  the  leg¬ 
islature,  if  they  became  parties  to  the  injustice  themselves,  by  vot¬ 
ing  for  men  pledged  to  refuse  it.  This  was  on  the  29th  of  October. 
Up  to  that  period,  even  Bennett  avowed  that  there  was  nothing  to 
censure  in  my  conduct.  Observe,  I  do  not  quote  Bennett  as  if  he 
were  ivorthy  of  belief,  even  when  he  tells  the  truth.  But  knowing 
as  you  know  even  the  malignity  with  which  he  pursued  me,  before 
that  period,  if  I  had  left  it  in  his  power,  he  would  not  have  failed  to 
denounce  me,  inasmuch  as  he  does  prefer  truth  to  falsehood,  when¬ 
ever  the  former  furnishes  a  higher  gratification  to  his  avarice  and 
revenge  than  the  latter.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  his  charges  and  yours 
against  me  in  connection  with  this  subject  are  and  have  been  false  and 
slanderous  from  the  beginning.  My  addresses  at  all  times  in  Carroll  HaM 
on  the  School  Question  were  directed  to  citizens  constituting,  as  I 
supposed,  a  part  of  the  great  American  family  ;  and  if  sometimes 
I  had  occasion  to  allude  to  the  countries  of  their  fathers,  or  from 
which  many  of  themselves  came,  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  attaching 
them  the  more  strongly  to  that  of  their  adoption ;  to  teach  them 
that  here  the  constitution  and  laws  are  wise,  and  just,  and  liberal; 
that  under  such  laws  if  they  suffered  a  wrong,  they  had  but  to  seek 
redress  at  the  proper  tribunals.  This  was  the  nation,  of  which  I  ex¬ 
horted  them  to  prove  themselves  worthy,  and  not  any  foreign  coun¬ 
try,  as  you  erroneously  assert.  Who  then,  sir,  I  ask,  was  it  who 
first  threw  the  religious  elements  of  sectarian  strife  into  this  School 
question  ?  I  say,  and  I  shall  prove  presently,  that  whilst  I  had  no 
hand  or  part  in  it,  the  editor  of  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  who  ex¬ 
pressed  such  holy  horror  at  the  “  mixture,”  was  himself  among  the 
first  to  fling  the  bitter  ingredients  of  religious  animosity  into  the  po¬ 
litical  cauldron.  Ten  days  before  the  meeting  at  Carroll  Hall,  you, 
Col.  Stone,  were  the  author  of  the  following  false  and  uncharitable 
paragraph  : 

“  The  School  Question. — So,  the  Pope  has  been  at  work  at 
Tammany  Hall,  and  his  votaries  have  obtained  their  demand  of  the 
‘  party.’  A  portion  of  the  assembly  ticket  nominated,  is  in  favor  of 
breaking  np  our  admirable  system  of  common  schools,  and  trans¬ 
forming  them  into  nurseries  of  the  Homish  Church.  In  other  words, 
if  Messrs.  Pentz  &  Co.  can  succeed  in  their  schemes,  the  Piiotest- 
ants  of  the  city  are  to  be  taxed  for  the  support  of  Roman  Catho- 
32 


« 


498 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Lie  Schools,  AS  SUCH.  Are  the  Protestants  of  New  York  pre¬ 
pared  for  this  ?” — Com.  Advertiser..  Vol.  xliv.,  Tuesday  eveninu, 
Oct.  19,  1841. 

This  was  written  and  the  emphatic  words  underlined  as  above, 
ten  days  before  the  meeting  at  Carroll  Hall.  Instead  of  being 
ashamed  of  this  inflammatory,  sectarian  appeal,  founded  as  it  was  on 
the  gross  calumny  Avhich  it  asserts,  I  find  you  quoting  from  my 
speech  in  your  last  letter  as  follows,  and  of  course  refuting  yourself : 
“We  do  not  ask  that  any  portion  of  the  public  money  should  be 
confided  to  us,  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  our  religion  at  the  public 
expense.  Such  a  demand  AV'ould  be  ABSURD,  and  would  RICH¬ 
LY  MERIT  THE  REBUKE  WHICH  IT  COULD  NOT  ES¬ 
CAPE.” 

This  was  a  part  of  my  speech  at  Carroll  Hall.  You  perceive  that, 
it  is  a  direct  refutation  of  your  calumny  quoted  above.  And  how 
do  you  reply  to  it?  Do  you  say,  as  you  s'hould  with  advantage  to 
your  honor,  “We  are  sorry  indeed  that  under  a  vi^rong  impression, 
we  made  a  false  charge  against  the  Roman  Catholics — that  we  have 
thoughtlessly  excited  religious  rancor  among  our  citizens  by  an  ap¬ 
peal  to  them,  not  as  Whigs  or  Locofocos — but  as  Protestants  against 
Catholics^'’  No — no,  nothing  of  this  kind.  I  had  answered  your 
calumny  in  my  speech,  and  whilst  that  answer  is  before  you — 
whilst  I  acknowledge  that  if  your  statement  had  been  true,  “  our 
demand  Avould  be  absurd,  and  would  richly  merit  tlie  rebuke  which  it 
could  not  escape,”  your  remark  is — “  That  rebuke,  sir,  I  am  now  ad¬ 
ministering  to  you.”  But  why  my  dear  Colonel,  ?  I  have  proved  that 
I  was  innocent  of  the  charge  Avhich  merited  the  rebuke.  I  have 
proved  that  when  you  made  that  charge  you  bore  false  witness 
against  your  neighbor.  Why  then  should  you  rebuke  me  ?  I  fear, 
my  poor  friend,  that  you  are  Amry  sick  indeed. 

But  it  is  altogether  astonishing  that  your  memory  should  so  en- 
*  tirely  have  failed  you  on  this  subject.  In  the  Commercial  Advertiser 
of  Saturday,  October  23,  1841,  just  one  week  before  the  meeting  at 
Cai'roll  Hall,  you  published  the  following : 

“THE  ISSUE  IN  NEW  YORK. 

“We  learn  that  the  County  Convention  for  nominating  Whig 
candidates  for  the  City  and  County  of  New  York,  adopted  the  fol¬ 
lowing  resblution,  preliminary  to  the  discharge  of  the  special  duty 
for  Avhich  they  Avere  chosen  : 

“  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  will  not  nominate  any  person  as  a  candidate 
for  the  Assembly,  who  is  in  favor  of  any  alteration  of  the  present  system  of  the 
distribiition  of  the  school  fund.” 

This  resolution  Avas  sufficiently  clear  in  itself.  It  signified  that  no 
alteration  should  be  alloAved  in  respect  to  any  improvement  in  the 
system  of  Public  School  education.  Its  authors  took  care  not  to  in¬ 
troduce  the  religious  element  into  the  expression  of  it.  But  not  so 


LETTER  TO  COL.  STONE. 


499 


Col.  Stone.  He  again  turns  away  from  Wliigs,  and  appeals  to 
“  Protestants.” 

“This  resolution,”  he  says,  “was  adopted  by  the  convention  with 
but  a  single  dissenting  voice,  and  the  Whig  Assembly  ticket  has 
been  selected  upon  the  principle  therein  set  forth.  Indeed  the  can¬ 
didates  have  all  been  informed  that  they  are  nominated  expressly  to 
oppose  any  alteration  in  the  mode  of  distributing  the  school  fund  in 
the  city  of  New  York.  Now,  then,  as  to  the  candidates  for  the 
Senate,  the  Protestants  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  and,  indeed  of  the 
district,  demand  that  the  candidates  for  the  Senate  be  selected  o.n 
the  same  principle,  and  unless  they  are  so  selected  with  the  distinct 
understanding,  that  they  will  sustain  our  jrresent  incomparable  sys¬ 
tem  AS  IT  IS,  (hey  will  not  he  sustained  by  the  people?’' 

Here  was  another  appeal  to  the  religious  prejudices  of  the  com¬ 
munity,  and  to  the  honor  of  that  community  be  it  said,  it  was  treated 
as  it  deserved.  In  a  few  days  afterwards.  Col.  Stone  was  charged 
by  one  of  his  colleagues  of  the  press  in  the  following  words  :  “  The 
gross  and  uncalled  for  attacks  of  the  Commercial  Advertiser  upon  the 
Catholic  religion  lost  us  the  city.” 

These,  sir,  are  facts  from  your  own  pen,  and,  so  far  as  the  only 
controversy  which  I  desire  to  have  with  you,  namely — that  which 
appertains  to  my  own  character  and  conduct  in  the  natural  right  of 
vindicating  both  from  the  foul  and  false  charges  which  you  and  Mr. 
Bennett  have  been  the  foremost  to  promulgate — these  facts  will  be 
quite  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  But  I  have  a  great  many  more 
when  you  will  be  able  to  hear  them.  The  files  of  your  paper  teem 
with  them.  All  the  other  portions  of  your  letter,  though  they  might 
be  very  well  in  their  place,  yet,  so  far  as  regards  the  only  question 
between  us,  are  mere  “  words,  words,  words.”  For  instance,  you 
maintain  “  the  existence  and  necessity  of  a  national  predominant 
RELIGION  which  is  neither  established  nor  unestablished.”  You 
maintain  the  necessity  of  a  scheme  of  public  education,  to  which 
“  discontented  fragments  must  conform,  and  towards  which  they 
can  exercise  no  veto  power  V  This,  sir,  is  sti'ong  language  to  use  to¬ 
ward  a  people  who  suppose  themselves  free.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know 
by  what  authority  you  ordain  what  the  law  does  not,  that  they  “  must 
conform.”  You  maintain  that  King  James’  Bible  is  the  best  ver¬ 
sion  of  the  sacred  scripture  in  our  language.  I  am  of  a  different 
opinion.  Now,  sir,  I  ask  you  whether  as  a  “discontented  frag¬ 
ment  ”  I  have  a  right  to  any  opinion  on  the  subject ;  or  whetlier  I 
“  7nust  conform  You  say,  “  the  great  battle  of  the  Keformation  is  to 
be  fought  over  again.”  But,  let  me  ask  you  whether  there  be  not 
some  more  Christian  mode  oi illuminating  the  minds  of  the“  Papists  ” 
than  that  of  burning  their  churches  ?  All  the  Reformations,  so  called, 
that  liave  taken  place,  would  have  succeeded  much  better  if  their 
advocates  had  exercised  a  little  more  charity  and  tolerance  towards 
each  other.  But  I  shall  not  pursue  the  subject  now.  I  have  written 
but  for  one  single  object,  namely,  to  vindicate  myself ;  and  I  have  no 
doubt  but  tliat  all  men  of  candid  minds  will  agree  that  that  object 
has  been  thoroughly  accomplished. 


500 


ARCUBISIIOP  HUGHES. 


I  commenced  this  letter  with  a  very  just  quotation  from  a  “  Native 
American  ”  paper.  Allow  me  to  close  it  by  another  from  an  English 
Protestant  clergyman.  But  before  doing  so,  let  me  call  to  your  re¬ 
collection  an  honorable  passage  of  your  own,  when  you  were  nobly 
engaged  in  scattering  the  conspiracy  of  Maria  Monk,  and  her  associ¬ 
ates  to  the  wind.  “  In  so  doing,”  you  remark,  “  I  have  believed 
myself  to  be  likewise  performing  a  duty  to  Protestant  Christianity 
in  the  light  of  truth  ;  since  I  believe  the  mqst  sovereign  antidote 
to  the  march  of  Popery  will  ever  be  found  in  that  divine  attribute 
(truth);  and  if  the  Papal  power  can  be  overthrown  only  by  fraud, 
falsehood,  and  imposture,  I  say  for  one  let  it  stand.”  Pity,  sir,  that 
ever  this  noble  sentiment  should  have  passed  from  the  memory  of 
its  author.  The  quotation  from  the  Rev.  author  of  the  portraiture 
of  Methodism,  Mr.  Nightingale,  is  as  follows.  I  give  it  for  what  it 
is  worth,  leaving  you  to  judge  whether  it  has  any  application  to  your 
recent  letters  or  not. 

“  When  the  early  Reformers  had,  with  a  pertinacity  unbecoming 
their  extraordinary  pretensions  to  purity  of  doctrine  and  spirituality 
of  character,  succeeded  in  affixing  on  their  old  friends  the  nickname 
of  Papists,  and  on  the  faith  they  deserted  from,  that  of  Popery,  the 
prejudice  these  terms  were  intended  to  inspire,  found  its  way  from 
the  pen  of  the  zealot  and  the  lips  of  the  declaimer,  to  the  solemn  acts 
of  nations,  and  the  edicts  of  the  reformed  princes.  The  liberal  and 
enlightened  spirit  of  modern  times  has  dictated  a  wiser  course,  and 
the  term  Roman  Catholic  is  that  by  which  those  formerly  called 
Papists,  are  now  designated  in  all  the  great  statutes  of  this  country 
(England). 

*  *  *  “The  reproachful  epithets  of  ‘Papist,’  ‘Romanist,’ 
‘  Popish,’  ‘  Romish,’  t%c.,  are  no  longer  applied  to  them  by  any 
gentleman  or  scholar P 

I  have  the  honor  to  be.  Sir,  your  obedient  Servant, 

»i<  John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


ALLEGED  BURNING  OP  BIBLES. 


501 


ALLEGED  BURNING  OF  BIBLES. 


Editor  of  the  Evening  Post  : — Sir, — I  send  you,  herewith,  the 
report  of  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  “  convened  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  at  Beekmanstown,”  on  Wednesday,  the  30th  of 
November,  in  relation  to  the  alleged  burning  of  a  quantity  of  “Bi¬ 
bles,  by  Roman  Catholic  priests,  in  the  town  of  Champlain,  Clinton 
county,  New-York.”  I  request  that  you  wull  have  the  goodness  to 
publish  the  said  proceedings  in  connection  with  this  communication. 


I  found  them  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal^  which  has  reached  me 
by  the  post  of  this  day ;  and  I  lose  not  a  moment  to  express  through 
the  medium  of  the  public  press,  the  indignation  with  which  I  con¬ 
demn  the  proceedings  there  reported,  so  far  as  they  may  turn  out 
to  be  true.  I  have  had  no  opportunity  of  judging  of  the  facts  in 
this  case,  except  through  the  medium  of  the  public  press ;  and  so 
far  as  that  medium  has  reflected  truth,  I  protest  against  the  alleged 
burning  of  Bibles,  in  my  own  name,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Catholic 
Clergy  and  Catholic  laity  of  the  diocese  of  New-York.  I  protest 
against  it,  as  an  act  unworthy  of  citizens  of  this  republic ;  and  I  pro¬ 
test  against  it,  in  order  that,  if  it  did  occur,  the  parties  immediately 
concerned  in  it  shall  alone  be  held  responsible. 

Claiming  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  Constitution,  granted  to 
all  citizens  without  distinction  of  creed,  I  hold  it  unworthy  their 
position  to  do  an  act  calculated  to  injure  the  rights  or  wound  the 
feelings  of  any  other  denomination ;  and  with  these  feelings,  which,  I 
trust,  are  the  universal  feelings  of  Catholicism  in  the  United  States, 
I  cannot  fintl  language  strong  enough  to  express  my  reprobation  of 
the  outrage  committed  on  the  feelings  of  my  Protestant  fellow-citi¬ 
zens,  by  an  act  so  shocking  to  their  prejudices,  as  would  be  the 
burning,  in  an  ostentatious  manner,  of  that  form  of  translation  of 
the  Bible,  to  which  they  are  so  generally  attached. 

In  these  remarks,  I  have  supposed  for  the  moment,  that  the  state¬ 
ment  assumed  by  the  “meeting  convened  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  town  of  Champlain,  Clinton  county,  New-York,”  is  a 
true  statement ;  I  do  not,  however,  admit  the  truth  of  it ;  but  merely 
assume  it  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  the  feelings  which,  if  it  were 
true,  it  should  excite  in  my  breast,  and  in  the  breast  of  every  Amer¬ 
ican  Catholic.  From  the  form  of  the  proceedings,  however,  I  take 
it  for  granted  that  there  must  be  some  truth  in  it ;  and,  so  far,  I  unite 
with  them  in  the  unqualifled  condemnation  of  the  act. 

As  I  understand  the  duty  of  American  citizens,  I  conceive  that 
every  man,  so  long  as  he  governs  himself  by  the  laws  of  his  country, 
and  fulfllls  the  duties  of  his  social  position,  is  accountable  to  God 
alone  for  the  convictions  of  his  conscience ;  and,  therefore,  it  is,  that 
I  condemn,  with  the  same  emphasis,  the  burning  of  Protestant  Bi¬ 
bles,  as  I  would  the  burning  of  a  Catholic  convent ;  and,  as  I  hold 
that  it  would  be  unjust  to  condemn  the  Protestant  ministers,  and 
the  Protestant  people  of  the  United  States,  for  the  burning  of  a  con¬ 
vent  at  Boston,  so  I  main  lain  it  would  be  equally  unjust  to  hold 


502 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


the  Catholic  people,  or  the  Catholic  priesthood,  accountable  for  the 
burning  of  a  Protestant  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  in  the  town 
of  Champlain,  Clinton  county,  New-York. 

Catholics  have  but  little  respect  for  King  James’  translation  of 
the  Bible ;  but  they  should  have  respect  for  the  diflerent  convictions 
of  their  Protestant  fellow-citizens  on  that  subject.  Tliere  are  zeal¬ 
ots  among  the  Protestants  Avho  think  they  do  God  a  service,  when, 
by  unworthy  artifices,  they  can  succeed  in  thrusting  their  tracts, 
and  their  version  of  the  Scriptures,  into  Catholic  families.  They  are 
blot  satisfied  to  allow  the  Catholic  to  follow  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience,  but  they  must  confer  upon  him  benefits,  as  they  suppose, 
which  his  conscience  obliges  him  to  refuse.  Catholics  have  the 
Scriptures,  approved  by  their  own  Church,  published  in  e^’el•y  form, 
to  suit  their  circumstances  ;  they  should  therefore  refuse  politely, 
but  with  firmness  and  independence,  the  offer  of  every  version  which 
they  regard  as  spurious;  and  if,  after  such  refusal,  those  obtrusive 
Bible  distributors  should  force  into  their  dwellings  such  copies,  I 
would  regard  them  as  justified  in  hurling  the  copy  out  of  doors 
after  him  who  had  left  it.  Thus,  as  the  laws  of  the  country  now 
stand,  if  Congress  should  pass  an  act  declaring  the  version  of  King 
James  to  be  the  true  translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  then  indeed 
the  Bible  distributors  may  claim  the  authority  of  the  state  for  pro¬ 
ceedings  which,  as  things  now  are,  cannot  but  be  regarded  as  ex¬ 
tremely  impertinent  on  their  part,  in  reference  to  their  Catholic 
fellow-citizens. 

Catholics,  therefore,  cannot  in  conscience  receive  this  spurious 
text,  but  they  can  never  correct  the  error  of  having  received  it  by 
burning  it  afterwards.  And  Protestants,  if  they  wish  to  see  the 
rights  secured  by  the  constitution  fairly  carried  out,  will  distribute 
their  Bibles  among  their  own  people,  instead  of  attempting  to  smug¬ 
gle  them  into  Catholic  fiunilies  who  do  not  wish  to  receive  them. 
We  never  force  our  Tracts,  or  our  peculiar  doctrines,  on  any  denom¬ 
ination  differing  from  us  in  religious  belief;  and  we  claim  the  reci¬ 
procity  of  courtesy  from  other  denominations. 

I  regret,  sir,  to  perceive  in  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  evi¬ 
dence  going  far  to  prove  that  the  reverend  gentlemen  who  took  part 
in  it  were  actuated  more  by  ill-will  towards  their  Catholic  fellow- 
citizens,  than  by  sincere  Christian  respect  for  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
They  speak  of  the  real  or  supposed  burning  of  the  Bibles,  as  having 
been  done  by  “  the  Roman  Catholic  priests.”  *  Why  did  they  not 
mention  the  names  of  these  priests  ?  Why  did  they  not  men¬ 
tion  the  lime  when  the  thing  occurred  —  the  place,  the  circum¬ 
stances  ?  So  as  the  public  might  distinguish  between  the  “  the 
priests”  who  were  guilty  of  this  oflence,  and  the  others  who  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it?  Why,  if  they  are  honest  men,  did  they  not 
give  names  and  dates  and  particulars,  by  which  the  party  guilty  of 
the  offence  could  be  distinguished  from  the  mass  of  Catholic  priests 
and  Catholic  people  of  the  United  States?  I  ask  very  naturally 
this  question,  why  was  it  so  ?  and  I  find  no  answer  except  in  the 
supposition  that  they  wished  to  impose  ou  t\\Q  honest  feelings  of  their 


ALLEGED  BURNING  OF  BIBLES. 


503 


countrymen,  and  excite  a  general  persecution  against  all  who  are 

})riests,”  or  all  who  are  “  Catholics.” 

It  was  once  my  duty  in  Philadelphia  to  attend  a  member  of  my 
communion  in  the  last  stage  of  consumption.  Poverty  and  disease 
had  left  her  for  a  long  time  dependent  on  the  benevolence  of  a  few 
charitable  persons  who  were  acquainted  with  her  situation.  Among 
these  was  a  committee  of  ladies  from  a  Protestant  Benevolent  So¬ 
ciety — persons  naturally  of  most  tender  and  humane  feelings.  They 
had  been  exceedingly  kind  to  her,  mingling  their  ministrations  of 
comfort  with  the  most  pious  exhortations ;  but  for  several  weeks 
immediately  previous  to  my  visit,  they  had  made  it  a  point  to  supply 
the  sutlering  victim  Avith  a  bowl  of  meat  soup  on  each  successive 
Friday.  She  might  have  been  hungry  ;  but  on  seeing  the  choice 
which  they  had  made,  and  the  time  Avhich  they  had  selected  for 
making  it,  “  she  had  no  appetite,”  she  said ;  not  wishing  to  otfend 
them  by  a  more  direct  refusal !  for  she  had  received  many  beuetits 
from  them  for  Avhich  she  Avas  grateful.  In  her  situation  it  Avould 
have  been  no  violation  of  her  Catholic  duties  to  hav’e  taken  soup  or 
meat  on  any  day;  and  yet  I  could  not  but  admire  and  reverence 
the  independence  of  conscience  manifested  by  the  dying  sutierer,  Avhen 
the  assault  Avas  made  upon  it  through  her  poverty  and  destitution. 
Those  good  ladies  were  at  length  determined  not  to  be  disappointed 
in  their  benevolence,  and  insisted  on  waiting  till  she  had  taken  the 
soup  in  their  presence.  She  then  told  them  that  she  was  a  Catholic, 
and  it  was  Friday ;  and  after  ejaculating  a  few  expressions  of  pious 
horror  at  the  blindness  of  her  heart,  left  her  and  returned  no  more. 

Alas !  thought  I,  if  this  be  Protestantism,  it  has  not  the  sjiirit  of 
the  good  Samarifcm,  and  I  am  not  surprised  that  it  makes  so  little 
impression  ;  and  yet  the  ladies  to  whom  I  have  referred  Avere  among 
the  most  respectable,  kind  and  benevolent  of  that  philanthropic  city. 

Noav,  sir,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  benevolence  and  philanthropy 
of  Protestants  are  too  often  under  the  guidance  of  a  similar  spirit ; 
it  is  to  be  feared  that  this  spirit  has  presided  too  much  at  the  meet¬ 
ing  to  Avhich  Ave  have  referred.  I  blame  the  Catholics  for  their  con¬ 
temptible  pusillanimity  and  want  of  principle,  in  admitting  into  their 
possession  copies  of  the  Scriptures  Avhich  they  hold  to  be  spurious ; 
I  blame  them  equally  for  their  indecent  disregard  of  Avhat  is  due  to 
the  religious  feelings  of  their  felloAv^-citizens,  in  taking  those  Bibles 
and  publicly  burning  them  afterwards.  I  condemn  and  disavoAV  this 
act  in  the  name  of  the  Catholic  clergy  and  laity  of  the  diocese  of 
NeAV  York.  And  if  it  was  done,  let  the  individuals  concerned  in  it, 
Avhether  priests  or  laymen,  be  held  ansAverable  for  their  unbecoming 
proceedings. 

In  the  meantime,  hoAvever,  not  having  any  knoAvledge  of  the  trans¬ 
action,  except  Avhat  is  contained  in  the  bad  spirit  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  meeting  held  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  I  am  unpre- 
jiared  to  believe  that  report  until  it  be  attested  by  more  minute  and 
circumstantial  evidence  ;  and  in  order  to  satisfy  the  public  mind, 
and  to  test  the  accuracy  of  those  proceedings,  I  would  request  that 


504 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


any  two  Protestant  gentlemen  of  good,  liberal  feelings,  would  join 
two  Catholic  laymen  and  proceed  to  the  place  for  the  purpose  of 
preparing  a  report  which  shall  contain  the  fact,  if  the  fact  has  occur¬ 
red,  the  names  of  the  parties,  the  time,  place  and  circumstances  of 
this  extravagant  proceeding.  I  will  be  willing  myself  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  the  Catholic  gentlemen,  or,  if  necessary,  of  them  all. 
In  this  way  an  odium,  which  would  be  as  unjust  as  it  is  unmerited 
by  the  Catholic  body  of  the  United  States,  will  be  repelled  ;  and  the 
individuals  wdio  are  culpable  of  the  alleged  outrage  will  be  held  up 
in  their  proper  names  to  the  reprehension  which,  if  the  report  of  the 
meeting  alluded  to  be  correct,  they  so  unqualifiedly  deserve. 

^  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop  of  New  York. 

JVeio  York,  January  1,  1843. 

“  The  Rev.  J.  Rooney,  at  the  instance  of  Bishop  Hughes,  caused 
the  gentlemen  whose  names  are  appended  to  the  following  report  to 
visit  Corbu  and  institute  a  rigid  inquiry  into  the  fiicts  connected 
with  the  burning  of  the  Bibles  at  that  jjlace. 

Report. 

The  undersigned,  in  compliance  with  a  request  of  the  Rev.  J. 
Rooney,  of  Plattsburgh,  and  in  conformity  with  the  wfishes  of 
Bishop  Hughes  of  New  York,  as  published  in  the  papers,  met  at 
Corbu,  in  the  town  of  Champlain,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
the  facts  in  relation  to  the  burning  of  Bibles  at  that  place  in  No¬ 
vember  last. 

After  having  examined  a  number  of  witnesses,  jve  havm  to  report, 
that  Bibles  were  burnt,  and  that  the  number  will  not  vary  much 
from  forty-two — we  think  that  to  be  the  precise  number.  They 
were  burnt  by  Mr.  Telman,  a  Missionary  from  Canada,  and  recently 
from  Prance,  a  Fiiar  oblat — that  Mr.  Telman  was  the  sole  insti¬ 
gator  and  mover  in  the  business  of  buining  Bibles,  and  in  opposition 
to  the  wishes  and  feelings  of  Mr.  Durgas,  the  resident  Clergyman 
at  Corbu.  It  appears  that  the  number  burnt  was  but  a  small  pro¬ 
portion  of  the  whole  number  distributed  among  the  people.  These 
Bibles  were  given  to  the  Catholics  by  Protestant  agents  of  the  Bi¬ 
ble  Society,  and  in  some  cases  were  left  with  individuals  after  an 
expression  of  repugnance  to  receive  them,  and  but  a  small  number 
of  those  who  gave  up  their  Bibles  to  be  burned  could  read  at  all. 

It  appeared  in  testimony  that  the  Bishop  of  Montreal  was  at 
Corbu  five  days  after  the  above  transaction,  and  expressed  in  strong 
language  his  disapprobation  of  the  whole  affair. 

Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above  facts  and  circumstances,  we  have 
arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  whatever  odium  or  blame  there  is  in 
this  transaction,  it  belongs  to  Mr.  Telman ;  and  that  it  would  be 
uncharitable  and  unjust  to  throw  it  upon  the  whole  denomination. 

Eiskx’k  a.  Soo'rr,  Hiram  Ladd,  David  Parsons,  Protestants, 

Micii’l  Haggerty,  John  Riley,  Patrick  Moefitt,  Catholics. 


THE  JUBILEE. 


505 


THE  JUBILEE  OF  1843. 

JOHN,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  and  the  appointment  of  the  Holy  See  Bishop  of  Basile- 
opolis,  Coadjutor  to  the  Bishop  and  Administrator  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  to  the 
Clergy  and  Faithful  of  said  diocese,  Peace  and  Benediction. 

Venerable  Brethren  of  the  Clergy^  and  beloved  Children  of  the  Laity. 

The  evils  whicli  have  afflicted  the  Church  of  Spain,  have  caused 
our  Holy  Father  GeegoryXVI,  the  Supreme  Visible  Pastor  of  the 
Church  on  Earth,  to  address  an  Encyclical  Letter  to  the  Bishops  and 
faithful  of  the  universal  flock  committed  to  his  care,  inviting  and 
urging  them  to  offer  up  their  united  supplications  and  prayers  to 
God,  to  obtain  the  abbreviation  of  the  days  of  trial,  which  now 
press  on  the  faithful  in  the  Spanish  dominions. 

In  the  Church  of  God  there  is  a  communion  of  joys  and  sorrows, 
as  well  as  of  faith.  If  one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer 
with  it ;  and  if  one  member  rejoices,  all  the  members  rejoice.  It  is 
a  melancholy  spectacle  to  behold  the  children  of  Spain,  so  constant 
and  so  ardent  in  their  immemorial  attachment  to  the  Holy  See, 
exposed  by  the  oppressive  conduct  of  temporal  rulers,  to  be  severed 
from  the  everlasting  centre  of  Catholic  Unity.  In  that  country. 
Princes  have  met  together  against  the  Lord  and  against  his  Christ ; 
the  ancient  laws  of  the  Church  are  violated  by  secular  enactments, 
and  the  violation  forced  on  the  Clergy  and  faithful,  contrary  to  their 
will.  Bishops  driven  into  exile  for  no  crime  but  fidelity  to  tlieir 
God ;  Priests  consigned  to  prison  for  refusing  to  recognize  sacrilege 
and  the  spoliation  of  the  House  of  God,  by  the  usurpations  of 
arbitrary,  temporal  power  ;  Altars  left  without  the  Minister  to  offer 
sacrifice  on  them,  and  Temples  robbed  of  all  that  made  them  august 
and  venerable  in  the  estimation  of  the  people  ;  the  people  themselves 
deprived  of  the  ministry  of  faithful  and  lawful  Pastors  ;  mark  the 
progress  of  the  powers  of  darkness,  in  their  efforts  to  destroy  that 
religion,  which  at  all  times  constituted  the  first  glory  of  Spain. 
The  Sovereign  Pontiff,  on  whom  devolves  the  solicitude  of  all  the 
churches,  obliged  by  the  duties  of  his  exalted  station  to  witness 
these  ravages  in  the  Lord’s  vineyard,  in  the  affliction  of  his  paternal 
heart,  calls  upon  all  the  faithful,  as  in  the  days  when  their  prayers 
obtained  the  release  of  Peter  from  prison,  again  to  supplicate  the 
Father  of  Mercies  on  behalf  of  the  persecuted  faithful  of  Spain. 

We  cannot  co-operate  effectually  in  the  intention  thus  set  forth, 
unless,  we  ourselves  be  reconciled  to  God  by  repentance  and  compunc¬ 
tion  of  he'art.  With  the  view  to  obtain  these  necessary  dispositions, 
and  that  our  prayers  may  be  acceptable  to  Heaven,  the  Holy  Father 
has  granted  to  all  the  faithful,  who  shall  have  returned  to  God,  by  a 
sincere  confession,  the  reception  of  the  sacraments  of  Penance  and 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  a  Plenary  Indulgence  in  the  form  of  a  Jubilee. 

The  conditions  required  for  obtaining  the  indulgence  are,  that  the 
faithful  having  received  the  aJ)Ove  sacraments  with  worthy 
dispositions,  shall  assist  at  the  public  prayers  of  the  church,  three 


506 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


times  within  fifteen  con  secutive  days,  and  shall  have  prayed  fervently 
with  the  above  intention.  The  prayers  to  be  publicly  read  after 
Mass  in  each  Church,  during  fifteen  days,  are  Litanies  of  the  Saints 
with  the  Orations  attached  to  them,  and  the  private  prayers  to  be 
said  by  each  individual,  are  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  and  Hail  Mary  each 
three  times. 

The  period  for  complying  with  these  conditions,  and  gaining  the 
Indulgences  attached  thei-eto,  has  been  graciously  extended  to  a 
period  of  six  months  from  the  date  of  the  reception  of  the  Apostolic 
letters  in  this  country.  These  letters  were  received  about  the 
middle  of  May,  and  there  remain  of  the  term  unexpired  little  more 
than  ten  wmeks. 

The  Pastors,  therefore,  of  the  diflTerent  congregations  will  lose  no 
time  in  giving  to  their  flocks  the  opportunity  of  j^rofiting  by  this 
season  of  grace  and  of  mercy.  Their  own  powers,  in  the  tribunal 
of  penance,  are  extended  even  to  cases  which,  in  the  ordinary 
circumstances  of  their  ministry,  would  not  come  within  their 
exercise. 

Wherever  it  can  be  done,  it  should  be  desirable  that  there  should 
be  public  exercise  in  the  Church  in  the  form  of  a  spiritual  retreat. 
This  would  give  them  the  opportunity  of  instructing  and  exhort¬ 
ing  their  people ;  of  calling  on  those  who  have,  perhaps,  long 
neglected  the  sacraments  of  the  Church,  to  profit  by  this  happy 
occasion,  and  to  be  reconciled  with  their  God.  It  would  be 
well  also,  if  Clergymen  living  contiguous,  or  in  the  same  neighbour¬ 
hood,  should  so  arrange  it  that  they  might  be  able  to  assist  each 
other. 

The  Reverend  Clergy  will  understand  that  in  case  of  sickness, 
distance  from  the  Church,  or  any  other  causes,  which  they  may 
deem  sutficieut,  they  are  authorised  to  dispense  with  the  visits  to  the 
Church  prescribed  by  the  Brief,  and  even  to  substitute  other 
prayers,  instead  of  those  mentioned,  according  to  their  charity  and 
prudence.  But,  in  order  to  gain  the  Plenary  Indulgence,  it  is 
essential  that  the  faithful  shall  have  approached  the  Sacraments  of 
Penance  and  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  that  they  shall  ofler  their 
prayers  in  the  intention  of  our  Holy  Father  the  Pope,  as  above. 

Given  at  New  York,  this  5th  day  of  September,  1842. 

WILLIAM  STARRS,  Sec’y. 


SERMON  ON  THE  JUBILEE. 

The  Trvth  Teller  of  September  17th,  1842,  contained  the  following 
synopsis  of  a  sermon  preached  by  the  Right  Reverend  Bishop 
Hughes  on  the  Sunday  previous  in  the  Cathedral — the  subject  was 
The  Jubilee — his  text  from  the# first  of  Isaiah — “Go  feed  the  poor 
and  clothe  the  naked,  and  then  come  and  accuse  me,”  &c. 


SERMON  ON  JUBILEE. 


507 


The  religions  duties  imposed  on  us  at  this  peculiar  time  were  of 
a  two-fold  character;  in  the  first  place  to  purify  ourselves  from  sin 
by  the  special  use  and  application  of  the  indulgences  granted  by 
Almighty  God  through  his  church  to  the  faithful.  And  in  the 
second  place,  to  lift  our  purified  hearts  and  voices  to  the  throne 
•of  heaven  in  behalf  of  the  faithful  but  persecuted  Catholics  who 
inhabit  the  Spanisli  dominions.  The  free  exercise  of  tlie  Catholic 
worship  and  discipline  had  been  interfered  with  by  temporal  power 
in  that  Country.  The  bishops  and  pastors  and  teachers  of  our 
creed  in  that  unhappy  land  had  been  driven  into  exile  for  no  other 
crime  than  fidelity  to  the  sacred  orders  of  their  God — altars  are 
deprived  of  a  ministering  priesthood — temples  are  robbed  of  much 
that  made  them  venerable  in  the  eyes  of  the  followers  of  Christ,  the 
people  are  deprived  of  the  instruction  and  consolations  of  religion ; 
and  the  powers  of  darkness  threaten  for  a  time  to  prevail  over  a 
race  who  have  made  themselves  glorious  amongst  the  nations  by 
their  steady  and  consistent  adherence  to  the  Catholic  faitli.  Our 
Sovereign  Pontiff,  feeling  for  the  miseries  and  sufferings  of  the  faith¬ 
ful  in  that  section  of  the  fold  of  Christ,  has  signified  to  us  his  earnest 
desires  and  commands,  to  beseech  and  supplicate  the  Father  of 
mercies  in  their  behalf.  And  we  are  further  required  to  take 
advantage  of  the  coming  of  the  Jubilee,  not  only  to  purify  and  exalt 
our  own  hearts,  but  to  offer  the  incense  of  regenerated  souls  to  the 
almighty  Creator  of  all,  with  the  hope  that  the  sufferings  of  his 
faithful  Spanish  people  may  cease,  or  be  limited  to  a  short  duration, 
and  that  they  may  abtain  grace  to  persevere  in  their  resolutions  to 
adhere  to  the  discipline  of,  and  communion  with  God’s  church  on 
earth,  against  which  we  are  assured  by  the  promises  of  God  himself 
the  wicked  shall  never  prevail. 

The  Jubilee  is  an  ancient  Jewish  institution.  With  them  it  was 
established  as  a  civil  or  social  law.  With  us  it  is  an  ecclesiastical 
and  religious  ordinance.  The  Jews  observed  the  return  of  every 
fiftieth  year  as  the  signal  for  dissolving  all  civil  contracts.  At  the 
end  of  seven  times  seven  years,  all  prisoners  in  captivity  were  set 
free.  All  slaves  were  released  from  their  masters.  All  property 
reverted  and  was  restored  to  its  original  owners.  Jubilee  is  a 
Hebrew  word,  which  signifies  to  return.  The  sale  of  property  could 
never  extend  beyond  the  term  of  the  Jubilee,  and  must  be 
returned  to  the  primitive  owners  or  their  descendants  and  next  of 
kin. 

This  law  continued  amongst  the  Jewish  people  down  to  their 
captivity.  The  early  fathers  of  the  Catholic  church  adopted  this 
law  in  a  religious  sense,  and  it  has  continued  as  a  religious  ordinance 
in  our  church  from  generation  to  generation  to  the  present  time.  It 
is  now  adopted  by  the  head  of  the  church,  and  is  woven  into  our 
religious  system.  At  first  it  was  fixed  by  the  church  to  take  ])lace 
at  the  end  of  every  hundred  years.  Subsequently  it  was  established 
by  an  ordinance  of  the  Sacred  Tribunal  to  take  place  every  fiftieth 
year,  and  now,  in  order  that  the  faithful  may  have  more  frequent 


608 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


opportunities  to  eml)race  t^he  advantages  which  it  offers,  it  is  held 
every  twenty-fifth  year. 

In  every  age  tlie  head  of  the  church  has  circumscribed  the  powers 
of  all  orders  of  the  clergy  within  certain  limits.  And  in  every 
country  these  regulations  and  limitations  have  been  scrupulously 
observed.  Priests  have  certain  powers  confided  to  them.  Bishops 
are  granted  certain  powers  lai’ger  than  the  priest.  Cardinals  have 
still  larger  powers  than  either.  There  are  some  cases  where  penitents 
cannot  be  absolved  by  the  ordinary  priest,  and  some  who  cannot  be 
absolved  by  the  bishop,  but  whose  case  must  go  before  the  cardinals 
or  the  Holy  Father.  But  in  the  year  of  Jubilee,  larger  powei’S  are 
given  to  the  priesthood,  and  all  of  during  them  that  sacred  time  have 
full  liberty  to  deal  with  the  most  important  cases.  In  the  year  of  the 
Jubilee,  the  powers  belonging  to  the  Bishop  or  the  Pope  are  confided 
to  the  clergy,  and  all  persons  have  thus  afforded  them  an  easy 
opportunity  of  becoming  reconciled  to  their  God. 

In  the  year  of  Jubilee,  the  largest,  most  plenary,  and  most 
comprehensive  indulgences  are  granted  to  the  truly  penitent  sinner. 
Though  we  are  familiar  with  the  term  indulgence,  and  though  we 
have  an  idea  of  its  import,  it  is  to  be  apprehended  that  all  do  not 
fully  comprehend  the  true  nature  of  the  principle  enwrapped  in  the 
word.  What  is  an  indulgence  ?  It  is  the  remission  of  an  extra,  an 
ultimate  penalty,  due  by  the  sinner  to  his  Maker  for  the  disobedience 
of  his  divine  commands.  The  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ  provides 
for  the  remission  of  original  sin — but  even  then  there  is  another 
kind  of  punishment  due  to  sin,  even  after  the  atonement;  and  it  is 
to  that  other  penalty  that  indulgence  refers — for  though  you  may 
have  cleansed  yourselves  by  repentance,  there  is  still  a  penalty 
incurred  by  sin  which  the  church  under  the  divine  commands  and 
promise  of  our  Lord  himself,  has  the  power  to  absolve  and  remit, 
and  that  power  is  granted  extensively  and  fully  to  the  whole  priest¬ 
hood  during  the  holy  season  of  the  Jubilee. 

Though  the  promise  of  a  Redeemer  was  imparted  by  God  to 
Adam,  yet  he  did  not  tell  him  that  he  was  to  be  freed  without  an 
effort  of  his  own.  No  !  Even  the  infant  that  has  just  seen  the  light 
and  expired — the  infant  whose  guilt  can  hardly  be  palpable  or 
perceptible,  yet  that  infant  is  bound  to  pay  the  penalty  of  sickness, 
death,  and  after  suffering  for  sin.  When  David  sinned,  the  projJiet 
declared  that  his  child  should  be  sick  and  suffer  death  as  a  punish¬ 
ment.  In  the  journey  of  the  children  of  Israel  to  the  promised  land, 
many  were  condemned,  whose  bones  were  laid  in  the  desert. 

Now,  that  temporal  punishment  is  such,  that  we  cannot  conjecture 
its  nature.  We  have  the  doctrine  of  penance,  by  which  we  become 
reconciled  to  God  after  we  have  offended  his  justice.  St.  Paul  says 
he  chastised  his  body  to  make  up  what  was  wanted  in  the  disciyiline 
imposed  on  him  by  his  divine  master.  We  see  the  nature  of  this 
punishment  in  the  sufferings  of  the  church,  and  in  the  daily  trouble 
and  vexations  to  which  all  Christians  are  subject,  and  we  believe  it 
to  be  an  ordeai  through  which  the  faithfid  Christian  has  tc»  pass  to 
the  presence  of  his  God. 


SERMON  ON  JUBILEE. 


509 


The  doctrine  of  original  guilt — the  doctrine  of  the  atonement — ■ 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory — the  doctrine  of  penance — temporal 
punisliment  and  suffering,  and  the  application  of  those  doctrines  to 
the  sinning  soul,  are  all  links  in  tlie  great  chain,  and  are  to  he  taken 
together  as  a  system  of  repentance  and  reconciliation  to  God.  Unless 
we  are  reconciled  to  God  by  penance,  and  have  recourse  to  the 
sacraments  by  which  sin  is  forgiven,  we  cannot  obtain  this  indulgence. 
If  any  one  supposes  he  can  obtain  tlie  benefit  of  an  indulgence, 
while  he  harbors  any  favorite  sinful  passion  of  the  soul — any 
revengeful  desire  of  the  heart,  any  grovelling  anxieties  of  avarice, 
any  swelling  emotions  of  pride,  he  is  much  and  egregiously 
mistaken.  He  cannot  hope  for  the  attainment  of  so  great  a  blessing 
while  his  mind  is  unsubdued,  and  is  under  the  influence  of  those 
repulsive  and  degrading  passions. 

An  indulgence  is  not  a  license  to  commit  sin,  as  some  have  said  ; 
on  the  contrary,  unerring  symptoms  of  sincere  repentance  must  be 
manifested  by  the  candidate  for  this  heavenly  dispensation.  St.  Paul 
granted  an  indulgence  to  the  incestuous  Corinthian  :  he  had  been 
convicted  of  a  heinous  crime — he  had  been  cut  off  from  the 
community  of  his  fellow  citizens — but  as  he  showed  evident  marks 
of  contrition,  St.  Paul  fearing  that  he  might  fall  into  despair  and 
despondency,  granted  him  the  indulgence  of  again  mixing  and 
communicating  with  the  faithful.  And  in  the  early  history  of  the 
church,  there  are  numberless  instances  of  the  fallen  sinners  approach¬ 
ing  the  house  of  God — standing  .at  the  port.als,  but  not  daring  to 
enter  ;  but  on  manifesting  sincere  sorrow  for  their  guilt,  they  were 
at  last  indulged  and  suffered  to  come  in. 

When  the  blessed  martyrs  to  Christianity  were  going  to  the  rack 
that  was  to  tear  them  limb  from  limb,  and  to  the  fire  that  was 
to  consume  them,  they  prayed  for  indulgences,  and  their  peculi.ar 
sufferings  guaranteed  them.  But  so  far  from  being  favor.able  to 
the  commission  of  sin,  the  indulgence  presupposes  that  sin  has 
ceased. 

And  now,  how  we  ought  to  prepare  to  meet  this  gre.at  duty — we 
may  never  have  such  an  opportunity  again,  during  our  natural  lives, 
and  how  eagerly  ought  we  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  favorable  time 
to  remove  the  just  opposition  which  our  sins  created,  and  thus  pass 
more  directly  to  the  presence  of  our  Maker,  and  how  easy  are  the 
conditions  !  They  are  simply  a  true  contrition  of  soul — the  recep¬ 
tion  of  the  holy  Sacraments  and  the  attendance  three  times,  for 
.about  <an  liour  each  time,  at  tlie  religious  ceremonies  appointed  to 
take  place  in  the  church.  So  easy  is  it  to  be  reconciled  to  God ! 
And  when  we  reflect  on  the  goodness  of  God  to  us,  and  th.at  he  has 
opened  to  us  a  mode  of  attaining  Heaven  .and  that  soul  which  Christ 
saved  by  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  may,  by  the  dispensation  of 
Christ’s  church,  pass  purified  into  his  presence ;  we  become  astounded 
at  the  extent  of  his  goodness,  and  we  become  ashamed  to  continue 
in  sin.  Let  us,  then,  r.aise  our  hearts  towards  the  eternal  throne  of 
the  Most  High.  Let  us  implore  the  Grace  of  Repentance  and 


510 


AECUDISHOP  HUGHES. 


Purification.  Let  us  co-operate  in  prayer  in  one  holy  community 
throughout  the  earth,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  tlie  sun,  for 
thu  relief  of  the  faithful  in  the  Lord  who  inhabit  the  Spanish 
dominions.  And  who  knows  but  that  amongst  the  millions  who 
appeal  to  the  throne  of  Heaven,  some  pure  heart,  some  exalted  soul, 
may  waft,  its  aspirations  more  fervently  than  the  others  ;  and  that  its 
pious  articulations  may  be  heard  by  the  God  of  all. 


THE  LATEST  INVENTION. 

From  the  Commercial  Advertiser. 

Messes.  Editoes, — In  your  Commercial  of  Monday,  you  pub¬ 
lished  from  the  Buffalo  Gazette.,  an  article  purporting  to  be  a  state¬ 
ment  of  the  dilferences  between  the  congregation  of  St.  Louis 
Church  in  that  city  and  myself.  It  stated  that  I  claimed  to  have 
“  the  property  of  the  church  vested  in  my  hands,  and  that  the  claim 
was  resisted  by  the  congregation.”  This  is  entirely  untrue.  I 
never  advanced  such  a  claim,  and  of  course,  it  could  not  be  refused. 
It  is  stated  that  in  consequence  of  this  refusal  I  “  called  away  the 
Rev.  Alexander  Pax,  and  left  the  congregation  destitute.”  This  is 
equally  imtruo.  On  the  contrary,  nothing  but  my  persuasion  was 
able  to  prevail  on  him  to  stay  for  the  last  eighteen  months  or  two 
years,  under  the  ill-treatment  of  a  few  worthless  men  who  call  them¬ 
selves  the  congregation.  It  is  stated  that  the  congregation  of  St. 
Patrick’s,  in  Bufiaio,  have  “  complied  with  my  requisition.”  This, 
again,  is  untrue.  The  trustees  and  congregation  of  St.  Patrick’s 
will  bear  me  witness  that  I  never  made  any  such  requisition.  I 
advised  them,  as  a  means  of  putting  an  end  to  quarrels  among  them¬ 
selves,  to  dispense  with  trustees,  and  to  avoid  the  rock  on  which  the 
church  of  St.  Louis  is  now  splitting.  These  are  the  principal  state¬ 
ments  ;  and  the  honorable  confidence  of  the  editor  of  the  Buffalo 
Gazette  has  been  sadly  abused  by  those  who  have  employed  his  au¬ 
thority  for  statements  which  they  knew  to  be  unfounded  in  truth. 
He  should  demand  proof  of  them,  and  if  they  cannot  furnish  it,  to 
which  I  challenge  them,  he  should  publish  their  names,  and  vindicate 
his  own.  He  has  been  deceived.  I  attach  no  blame  to  him.  If  his 
deceivers  can  furnish  no  proof  that  I  ever  made  such  a  demand,  I 
can  furnish  proof,  in  their  own  writing,  that  I  never  did. 

“  It  is  surmised,”  says  the  statement,  “that  the  Bishop  has  gone  so 
far  as  to  forbid  any  priest  in  the  neighboring  parishes  from  perform¬ 
ing  divine  service  in  St.  Louis  Church  until  the  congreg.ation  shall 
fully  comply  with  his  demands.”  Neither  member  of  this  “  surmise” 
is  true.  I  forbade  only  one  clergyman,  whose  inexperience  might 
have  been  taken  advantage  of  by  the  same  artifice  which  trifled  so 
foully  with  the  good  faith  of  the  editor  of  the  Gazette.  And  secondly, 
what  are  called  my  “  demands,”  in  the  statement,  never  had  any 
existence  in  reality. 


fHE  LATEST  INVENTION". 


511 


Surely  the  editor  of  the  Buffalo  Gazette  will  feel  a  glow  ofvirtnous 
indignation,  wlion  he  discovers  how  much  he  lias  been  imposed  on. 

The  only  difference  between  the  congregation  of  St.  Louis  and 
myself  is,  that  its  trustees  have  thought  projier  not  to  be  governed 
by  the  ecclesiastical  discipline  of  the  diocese,  and  expect  me  to  sup¬ 
ply  them  with  priests  who  shall  be  governed  by  a  different  discipline, 
of  which  they  shall  be  the  authors. 

The  congregation  of  that  church  are  pious  and  exemplary  Catho¬ 
lics,  to  whom  their  holy  faith  is  dearer  than  life.  But  it  sometimes 
happens  that  our  trustees  may  be  honest  and  upright  in  their  inten¬ 
tions,  and  yet  men  of  simple  understanding,  and  without  education. 
In  such  cases  only  let  an  enlightened,  talented,  intriguing  and  irre¬ 
ligious  mind  get  among  them,  and  then,  whatever  he  concocts  in  his 
infidel  mind,  he  induces  them,  under  specious  pretences,  to  adopt ; 
and  then  he  gives  out  the  depraved  purposes  of  his  own  heart  as  the 
act  of  the  Board,  and  this  again  as  the  act  of  the  congregation ! 
From  the  moment  this  arrives,  woe  to  the  flock,  and  woe  to  the  pas¬ 
tor,  who  are  at  once  divided  from  each  other,  and  yet  kept  together 
by  such  a  Jink  of  iniquity. 

The  pious  and  amiable  Dr.  Pax  was  not  called  away  by  me ;  but 
I  left  him  at  liberty  to  leave  whenever  he  felt  that  he  could  stand  it 
no  longer.  It  appears  that  the  time  has  arrived.  I  have  no  German 
jiastor  to  send  in  his  place.  But  if  I  had,  it  would  be  with  instruc¬ 
tions  to  rent  a  barn,  fit  up  an  altar  in  it,  and  administer  the  sacra¬ 
ments  of  religion  with  that  freedom  from  the  restraints  and  guidances 
of  unauthorized  lavmen,  with  which  God  made  the  ministers  of  his 
church  free — but  which  is  not  enjoyed,  it  appears,  in  the  church  of 
St.  Louis. 

The  neighboring  clergymen  could  not  officiate  in  it  without 
neglecting  their  own  congregations,  which  have  the  first  claim  on 
their  ministry.  Besides,  I  deem  it  my  duty  noxo  to  forbid  all  cler 
gymen  of  this  diocese^to  officiate  in  that  church,  until  it  shall  be  de¬ 
termined  whether  it  is  to  be  governed  by  the  ecclesiastical  reguka- 
tions  of  the  diocese,  or  by  the  “  resolves  ”  of  its  trustees.  . 

I  trust,  Messrs.  Editors,  that  you  will  publish  the  above  in  your 
paper,  as  an  act  of  reparation  which  I  may  claim  on  the  score  of 
justice.  I  ask  an  insertion  of  it  also  in  the  Buffalo  Gazette^  which  I 
am  sure  the  editor  will  not  refuse.  I  appeal  to  the  honor  of  such 
other  editors  as  may  have  copied  the  false  and  injurious  statement 
first  published  in  the  Buffalo  Gazette,  for  a  similar  favor. 

>J<  JOHlSr  HUGHES,  Bishop  of  New  York. 

New  York,  April  4,  1843. 

In  explanation  of  the  above  letter  of  the  Bishop,  we  add  the  para¬ 
graph  from  the  Buffalo  Gazette  containing  the  falsified  statement. 

“Bishop  Huoiies  and  the  Roman  Cathoi  jc  Congregation  op 
Buffalo. — We  regret  to  learn  that  a  serious  difference  exists  be¬ 
tween  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  and  the  French  and  German 


512 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


congregation  of  St.  Louis’  Church  in  this  city.  It  appears  that  the 
cause  of  the  controversy  is  a  late  requirement  of  the  Bishop  that  the 
property  of  the  church  be  vested  in  his  hands ;  to  which  the  congre¬ 
gation  are  not  willing  to  submit.  The  congregation  of  St.  Louis’ 
Church,  by  industry  and  frugality,  and  by  large  donations  from  our 
respected  fellow-citizen,  the  late  Louis  le  Couteulx,  Esq.,  has  founded 
a  claim  to  the  administration  of  their  own  property,  which  they  do 
not  feel  disposed  to  surrender.  In  consequence  of  this  non-compli¬ 
ance,  Bishop  Hughes  has  thought  proper  to  withdraw  from  them 
their  pastor,  the  Rev.  Alexander  Pax,  and  left  them  entirely  destitute 
of  any  clerical  assistance.  It  is  even  surmised  that  the  Bishop  has 
gone  so  far  as  to  forbid  any  priest  from  the  neighboring  parishes  to 
perform  divine  service  in  St.  Louis’  Church,  until  its  congregation 
shall  fully  comply  with  his  demands.  That  congregation,  it  appears, 
cannot  seek  redress,  except  through  the  Pope,  as  by  the  canon  laAV 
no  one  but  the  Bishop  has  the  power  to  appoint  priests  to  the 
churches  in  his  diocese,  and  his  authority  is  necessary  for  a  jiriest  to 
perform  divine  service  in  any  of  the  Catholic  churches  of  his  diocese. 

“  Yesterday,  being  Sunday,  the  trustees  opened  the  doors  of  their 
church,  and  many  of  the  members  of  its  immense  congregation 
attended  prayers,  read  by  the  Catholic  school  teacher.  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  this  state  of  things  will  not  long  continue  ;  that  Bishop 
Hughes  Avill  reflect  iqion  the  consequences  which  must  ensue  from 
his  determination  to  enforce  this  novel  claim,  and  that  he  will  aban¬ 
don  his  pretensions  to  the  temporal,  and  content  himself  with  the 
spiritual  administration  of  the  Church. 

“We  understand  that  the  congregation  of  St.  Patrick’s  Church, 
under  the  pastoi’al  charge  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whelan,  has  thought 
proper  to  comply  with  the  requisition  of  the  Bishop.” 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


513 


A  LECTURE  ON  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  A  CHRIS¬ 
TIAN  BASIS  FOR  THE  SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL 
ECONOMY,  AND  ITS  APPLICATION  TO  THE 
AFFAIRS  OF  LIFE. 

DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE  CALVERT  INSTITUTE,  BALTIMORE,  AND 
THE  CARROLL  INSTITUTE,  PHILADELPHIA,  ON  THE  Htii  AND  18th 
JANUARY,  1844,  BY  RT.  REV.  DR.  HUGHES,  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Political  Economy  professes  to  treat  of  the  material  wealth  of 
nations,  and  to  trace  out  the  laws  which  govern  and  regulate  its 
tendencies  to  increase  or  diminution.  By  material  wealth,  it  would 
have  us  to  understand  not  only  the  precious  metals,  as  gold  and 
silver,  hut  all  descriptions  of  property,  having  an  exchangeable 
value.  Whatever  substance,  whether  in  the  he.avens  above,  or  in 
the  earth  beneath,  or  in  the  waters  under  the  earth,  is  consecrated 
to  the  use  of  mankind,  by  the  expenditure  of  human  capital,  or 
human  labor,  passes,  ipso  facto^  under  the  scientific  dominion  of 
Political  Economy. 

From  this  view  it  would  seem,  at  first,  impossible  to  take  any 
adequate  cognizance  of  a  subject  so  vast,  so  complex,  and  so  essen¬ 
tially  variable.  This  is,  indeed,  to  a  great  extent  correct ;  and  the 
science  finds  itself  so  often  at  fault,  even  on  matters  which  it  ought, 
by  this  time,  to  understand  thoroughly,  that  he  must  be  a  credulous 
man,  who  ])laces  implicit  confidence  in  even  its  most  elaborate  con¬ 
clusions.  Yet.  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  special  province  of  all 
science  to  take  up,  and  arrange,  and  analyze,  distribute  and  classify, 
under  general  heads,  the  various  subjects  which  it  investigates ;  and 
no  matter  how  complicated  may  seem  to  be  the  material  afltairs  of 
wealth  and  industry,  in  the  social  relations  of  individuals,  or  in  the 
great  commercial  business  of  nations,  the  science  of  Political 
Economy  has  reduced,  from  the  patient  study  of  details,  certain 
leading  principles,  according  to  which  it  ha*s  distributed  the  whole 
subject  into  special  departments,  which  simplify  questions  in  a  man- 
33 


614 


AKCHBISHOP  IIUGHEB. 


ner  almost  inconceivable.  Trne  it  is,  that  the  professors  of  the 
Kcience  are  not  always  agreed,  as  to  the  accuracy  of  its  classifications 
or  the  soundness  of  its  principles.  True  it  is,  that  its  votaries  have 
yet  to  travel  an  immense  distance,  before  they  sliall  have  reached 
anything  like  infallibility.  Nevertheless,  it  has  already  furnished 
most  important  results.  The  observations  and  statistics,  which  it 
has  collected  and  arranged,  are  invaluable  ;  not  only  on  account  of 
the  points  which  they  have  elucidated,  but  also,  and  more,  on  account 
of  tlie  anomalies  in  social,  as  well  as  jjolitical  philosophy,  which  it 
has  utterly  failed  to  explain. 

Of  its  two  great  primary  departments,  the  one  com.prises  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  ;  the  other  embraces  the  material  things 
Avhich  are  required,  and  can  be  supplied,  for  the  physical  sustenance 
or  enjoyment  of  these  inhabitants.  Now,  it  is  found  that  these 
material  things,  before  they  can  be  fully  prepared  for  the  purposes 
of  sustenance  and  pleasure,  require  the  expenditure  of  capital,  either 
in  money,  or  labor,  or  both.  Such  things  are  divided  into  two 
stages  of  time ;  the  one  commencing  with  the  first  expenditure  of 
capital  on  the  raw  material,  and  ending  at  the  term  of  expenditure, 
when  the  thing  is  entirely  prepared,  and  passes  over  to  its  use.  This 
compreh-ends  all  the  industrial  pursuits  and  occupations  of  mankind  ; 
and  the  whole  is  designated  by  the  term  production.  The  other  stage 
begins  when  the  object  is  applied  to  its  use ;  and  this  stage  is  called 
by  the  general  term  consumption.  Tlie  latter  of  these  terms  repre¬ 
sents  the  wants,  whether  real  or  artificial,  of  society ;  the  former 
designates  the  supply  of  these  wants.  Population  is  also  classed 
under  two  corresponding  divisions  ;  namely, and  consumers. 

But  in  general,  the  science  has,  so  far  been  conducted  rather  in 
conformity  to  the  special  interests  of  particular  nations,  than  accord¬ 
ing  to  any  principles  of  universal  origin  or  a})plication.  The  coun¬ 
tries  which  have  paid  most  attention  to  this  subject,  in  a  scientific 
point  of  view,  are  France  and  England  ;  and  the  works  emanating 
from  these  countries,  represent  very  distinctly,  the  national  type, 
according  to  which  the  study  has  been  prosecuted.  Hence,  although 
there  are  found  in  their  treatises,  })rinci})les  supposed  to  be  of 
universal  application,  still  the  actual  ct)ndition  of  society,  the  nature 
of  industrial  pursuits,  the  bearing  of  commercial  laws,  ^peculiar  to 
those  countries,  have  come  in  so  powerfully  in  modifying  the  views 
of  J,heir  political  economists,  that  their  best  principles  cannot  be 
appreciated,  except  by  a  just  discrimination  of  all  the  circumstances, 
in  which  one  nation  difters  from  another. 

.  Thus,  for  instance,  confining  our  remarks  to  England,  with  which 
we  are  better  acquainted,  we  are  met  with  a  distribution  of  the 
population  into  classes,  which  are  not  formed  in  our  own  country. 
These  ai'e,  landlords,  capitalists,  and  laborers.  Generally  in  this 
country,  the  same  individual  represents  all  three.  He  is  the  owner 
of  the  soil,  which  he  cultivates  ;  and  his  means  of  carrying  on 
agriculture,  constitutes*  his  capital.  The  three  classes  are  indeed, 
found ;  but  that  which  constitutes  the  rule  in  England,  is  only  the 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


615 


exception  liere.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  the  fault  of  Political  Economy, 
as  a  science,  that  it  seems  to  regard  wealtli  as  the  end^  and  human 
beings  as  only  the  means,  in  order  for  its  attainment.  We  would  not 
venture  to  make  this  a  reproach  ;  and  yet  we  cannot  help  making  it 
a  subject  of  regret.  Its  writers  did  not  create  the  science  ;  they 
only  embodied  a  copy  of  its  workings  in  practical  life,  as  they  found 
it  in  the  relations  of  men.  The  prominence  which  is  given  to 
wealth,  in  tracing  out  the  most  certain  rules  for  the  acquisition  of  it, 
cannot  but  have  had  an  injurious  moral  effect,  in  so  far  as  it  enhanced 
the  ideal  value  of  riches  in  the  estimation  of  the  human  mind. 
There  perhaps  never  was  a  period,  when  men  entered  on  the  pursuit 
of  weahh,  with  so  much  of  what  might  be  called  almost  desperate 
determination  to  succeed,  as  the  period  in  which  we  live.  And  we 
may  entertain  a  I’easonable  doubt,  whether  it  be  not  owing  to  this, 
that  individuals  in  high  and  honorable  stations,  have  so  frequently 
(and  of  late  as  never  before,)  jeoparded  and  sacrificed  an  unblemished 
character,  rather  than  miss  tlie  opportunity  of  rapidly  acquiring 
wealth  ;  the  means  of  which,  circumstances  and  confidence  had 
placed  within  their  reach.  Cupidity  is  a  natural  propensity  of  man  ; 
and  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  theoretic,  and  practical,  political 
economy  of  our  age,  has  encouraged  and  whetted  the  passion  in¬ 
stead  of  moderating  and  regulating  its  violence.  It  is  certain,  that 
self-interest  is  the  great  motive  princi{)le  of  human  exertion ;  but  it 
is  equally  certain,  that  Political  Economy,  as  a  science,  omits  Avhat 
would  be  essential  in  a  true  definition  of  a  man’s  interest.  Of  this 
we  shall  be  convinced,  if  we  examine  the  moral  principle  on  which, 
Avliether  in  the  practice  of  modern  nations,  or  in  the  theory  of 
Avriters,  Political  Economy  is  founded.  If  Ave  follovv’'  it  up  to  the 
mysterious  link  which  connects  it  Avith  the  spiritual  or  moi’al  Avorld, 
in  the  breast  of  man,  Ave  shall  find  that  it  acts  exclusively  on  that  of 
personal  interest.  So  much  so  indeed,  that  if  England  and  France, 
and  the  nations  of  modern  times,  in  general  instead  of  being  Chris¬ 
tians,  or  at  least,  professing  Christianity,  Avere  Heathens,  it  would 
still  be  almost  unnecessary  to  change  a  single  word  in  the  actual 
Philosophy  or  ethics  of  Political  Economy.  Here  then,  it  is,  that 
the  importance  of  a  Christian  basis  demands  our  attention.  The 
advantages  and  disadvantage  of  position  betAveen  Landlord  and 
Tenant — between  the  Capitalist  and  the  Laborer,  are  such,  that  if 
mere  material  self-interest  alone  be  left  to  regulate  their  relations,  it 
is  easy  to  foresee  that  the  Aveaker  are  liable  to  fall  Auctims  to  the 
interests  and  poAver  of  the  stronger.  The  truth  of  this  proposition 
is  manifest  noAV,  in  the  condition  of  England,  Avhere  these  relations 
are,  and  have  been  in  existence  for  a  long  time.  Now,  if  Christianity 
Avere  admitted  as  an  element  in  Political  Economy,  man — human 
nature — in  consideration  of  the  value  Avhich  it  has  acquired  by  the 
Redem])tion,  Avould  be  the  first  and  principal  object  of  solicitude, 
and  all  things  else  Av^ould  be  estimated  by  reference  to  this.  Man’s 
interest  would  be  graduated  on  a  scale  proportioned  to  the  wdiole 
of  his  nature,  combining  the  spiritual  Avith  the  coiporeal ;  and  the 


516 


AKCIIBISllOP  HUGHES. 


whole  of  his  destiny,  extending  to  eternity,  as  well  as  time.  Then, 
indeed,  self-interest  thus  understood,  would  constitute  a  principle 
sufficiently  high  and  sufficiently  ample  to  combine  the  acquisition  of 
wealth,  with  sacred  regard  for  the  rights  and  privileges  of  human 
beings.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  landlords,  capitalists,  and 
laborers  of  England,  are  supposed  to  represent  three  great  depart¬ 
ments  of  capital ;  the  one  in  territoiy — the  other  in  money — and  the 
third  in  muscular  strength,  or  mechanical  skill.  Each  is  supposed  to 
be  free,  and  the  only  motive  which  is  furnished  in  the  present 
system,  is  that  of  individual  advantage.  But  it  happens  necessarily, 
that  what  would  be  the  advantage  of  one  class,  is  directly  opposed 
to  the  interests  of  another  ;  and  then  each  adhering  to  the  common 
j)rinciple,  it  is  clear  that  he  or  they  who  have  most  power  to  hold 
out,  will  be  able  to  damage  or  destroy  the  antagonist  interest  of  the 
other.  The  influences  to  be  derived  from  a  high  and  enlightened 
appreciation  of  human  worth,  according  to  the  standard  of  revela¬ 
tion,  seem  to  have  been  shut  out  from  the  practical  and  theoretic 
economy  of  modern  nations.  The  interest  of  the  body,  in  its 
relation  with  material  wealth,  limited,  of  course,  to  this  present  life, 
is  the  narrow  and  ignoble  sphere  within  which  political  economy 
affects  to  move. 

I  must  not  proceed,  however,  with  views  of  this  kind,  until  I 
shall  have  anticipated  an  objection  which  has  already,  perhaps, 
arisen  in  your  minds,  in  seeming  refutation  of  what  is  here  advanced. 
And  this  is,  that  the  immense  wealth,  the  wonderful  power,  and 
unequalled  prosperity  of  England,  as  a  nation,  is  a  practical  proof 
of  the  soundness  of  her  Political  Economy.  Or,  it  may  be,  that  an 
assumption,  which  has  often  been  proclaimed,  has  jjresented  itself 
to  your  mind  as  a  yet  stronger  refutation,  namely :  that  the  wealth 
of  England,  her  power  and  prosperity  are  owing  to  her  profession 
of  the  Protestant  religion,  and  the  play  of  those  energies  which  that 
religion  is  supposed  to  foster  and  develope.  Now,  with  the  qualifica¬ 
tions  which  will  occur  during  the  course  of  these  remarks,  I  admit 
the  truth  of  both  these  obserx  ations.  That  England  is  the  wealthiest 
nation  on  the  globe,  is  indisputable.  But  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that 
this  wealth  is  in  the  hands  of  a  small  portion  of  her  inhabitants  ; 
and  we  can  form  some  idea  of  its  amount  from  the  fact,  that  we 
read  of  private  individuals,  whose  annual  income  is  not  less  than 
half  a  million  of  pounds  sterling.  That  must,  indeed,  be  a  wealthy 
country,  in  which  the  income  of  a  private  gentleman,  for  a  period 
of  twelve  months,  would  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  salary  of  our 
President  for  nearly  a  hundred  years !  But  perhaps  no  stronger 
instance  could  be  adduced,  to  show  how  unequally  the  wealth  of 
England  is  distributed  among  its  inhabitants,  than  such  a  case  as 
this,  contrasted  with  the  hundreds  of  thousands  and  millions  of  the 
people,  who  are  sunk  and  sinking  under  the  combined  evils  of 
moral  and  physical  destitution.  Taking  the  population  of  the  three 
kingdoms  together,  as  constituting  one  political  family,  it  will  be 
found  that  there  is  no  nation  of  the  world,  and  above  all  no  Chris- 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


517 


lian  nation,  in  which  there  is  such  an  amount  of  poverty  and 
wretciiedness  as  in  England, 

Slie  lias,  indeed,  fought  the  great  battle  for  wealth  with  other 
countries,  and  has,  by  universal  consent,  gained  the  victory.  But 
how  comes  it  that,  while  a  few  of  her  sons  are  rioting  in  the  spoils 
of  the  vanquished,  the  cries  of  the  wounded  and  dying  of  her  own 
battalions,  are  heard  on  every  side  ?  IIow  comes  it  that,  in  Ire¬ 
land,  out  of  a  population  of  between  eight  and  nine  millions,  there 
are  over  two  millions  absolutely  dependent  on  the  charity  of  others, 
scarcely  a  degree  above  their  own  condition  ?  How  comes  it  that, 
in  Scotland,  misery  and  destitution  are  hardly  less  general,  and,  from 
other  causes,  perhaps  even  more  excruciating  still  ?  How  comes  it 
that,  in  England  itself,  distress  among  the  laboring  classes  presses, 
at  intervals,  to  such  an  extreme  point,  as  to  threaten,  from  time  to 
time.  Insurrection  and  revolution  ?  How  comes  it,  in  tine,  to  happen 
that,  while  the  dogs  of  landlords  and  capitalists  are  well  fed  and  well 
housed — while  their  horses  are  daintily  provided  for,  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  Britons  around  them  go  forth  with  gaunt  looks  and 
gunkeii  features,  through  want  of  food  ?  These  are  results  which 
'puzzle  political  economists,  but  which  never  could  liave  happened,  if 
Political  Economy  had  not  been  transferred  from  the  Christian  basis 
on  wdiich  it  was  originally  reared  in  that  country,  to  the  inadequate 
foundations  of  mere  individual  interest.  I  am  willing,  then,  to 
ascribe  to  the  Protestant  religion,  the  credit  of  England’s  wealth  ; 
but  her  poverty,  and  the  destitution  of  her  millions,  must,  I  insist 
upon  it,  be  charged  to  the  same  account.  This,  howe^'er,  only  in  so 
far  as  these  results  have  been  brought  about  by  the  Political  Economy 
of  that  country.  Other  causes  may  have  contributed  to  both — such 
as  the  system  of  colonization  and  military  conquest,  in  which  Eng¬ 
land  has  been  no  less  distinguished.  Neither  would  I  have  it  to  be 
understood,  that  I  regard  the  national  character  of  the  people  of 
that  country  as  differing  essentially  from  that  of  other  nations.  If 
it  be  true,  as  some  say  it  is,  that,  as  a  nation  or  as  individuals,  they 
are  proverbially  selfish,  I  do  not  ascribe  it  so  much  to  any  inherent 
deficiency  of  moral  excellence  or  feeling,  as  I  do  to  their  system  of 
Public  Economy,  Avhich  has  so  long  prevailed,  that  it  has  gradually 
become,  as  it  were  ingrained  into  the  habits,  principles,  sentiments 
and  associations  of  the  people.  Unfortunately,  the  same  feelings 
with  the  p’’evalence  of  the  same  system,  are  extending  to  other- 
nations  ;  and  if  they  should  continue,  as  appears  quite  likely,  it  may 
be  difficult,  at  no  distant  day,  to  determine  Avhich  will  be  entitled  to 
pre-eminence  on  this  score.  There  is,  it  is  but  just  to  add,  perhaps 
no  other  nation  hr  which  there  is  a  greater  readiness  to  come  to  the 
relief  of  public  distress,  when  it  can  be  remedied,  than  in  England. 
But  the  root  of  the  disease  is  deep  in  the  social  condition  of  the 
country:  and  the  highest  effort  of  modern  statesmen,  political 
economists,  and  philanthropists,  is  to  apply  palliatives  to  the  evils 
which  it  must  produce,  without  daring  to  eradicate  or  disturb  the 
principle  from  which  they  flow. 


518 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Let  HS,  then,  go  back  to  the  origin  of  this  system,  and  trace  its 
workings  m  connection  with  Political  Economy,  and  we  shall,  ])er- 
haps  be  able  to  discover  the  sources  from  which  both  the  wealth  and 
the  poverty  of  England  have  been  derived.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  England,  as  a  manufacturing  country,  had  no  pre¬ 
eminence,  and  was  scarcely  equal  to  France,  Italy,  Spain  and  the  Neth¬ 
erlands.  Up  till  that  peiiod,  the  profession  of  the  same  religion  had 
established,  throughout  all  these  nations,  a  certain  type  of  uniformity, 
in  reference  to  moral  as  well  as  religious  questions,  constituting  a 
standard  common  to  them  all.  This,  however,  did  not  interfere 
with  the  peculiar  genius  and  national  characteristics  of  each  people. 
But,  in  reference  more  especially  to  certain  social  questions,  such  as 
the  exercise  of  chai’ity,  making  provision  for  the  poor,  seasons  of  re¬ 
ligious  obsei’vances,  days  of  rest,  and  the  like,  the  usages  of  the  dif¬ 
ferent  nations  approached  sufficiently  near  to  uniformity.  England, 
as  is  known,  broke  away  from  this  religious  connection.  The  Chris¬ 
tianity  which  she  embraced  in  its  stead  was  based  upon  an  entirely 
different  principle,  as  regards  the  social  relations.  The  merit  of  good 
works  was  rejected  as  an  erroneous  doctrine,  and  it  was  ascertained 
that  sah  ation  is  by  faith  alone.  This  is  not  the  time  nor  the  place 
to  inquire  which  of  these  two  systems  is  true,  in  a  theological  point 
of  view.  But  they  are  mentioned  in  contrast,  as  having  been  calcu¬ 
lated  to  affect  most  seriously  the  social  relations,  especially  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  condition  of  the  poor.  Up  to  that  period,  the  influence 
of  the  Christian  religion  on  the  hearts  of  the  people  was  sufficient  to 
provide,  by  voluntary  contribution,  for  the  necessities  of  the  desti¬ 
tute  ;  and  it  was  a  great  safeguard  for  that  unfortunate  class,  that 
the  wealthy,  were  under  the  conviction,  right  or  wrong,  of  the  im¬ 
portance  and  advantage  to  themselves,  of  doing  good  to  their  neigh¬ 
bor.  When  the  universal  belief  was,  that  even  “  a  cup  of  cold  water 
gi\  en  in  the  name  of  a  disci])le,  should  not  be  without  its  reward,” 
the  efforts  and  sacrifices  made  spontaneously,  to  remedy  or  provide 
against  distress,  could  not  have  been  regarded  either  as  vain  or  un¬ 
productive  expenditure  of  capital. 

But  another  and  more  ob^'ious  result  of  the  change  was,  in  the 
increased  production  which  England  was  enabled  to  bring  forth,  in 
consequence  of  having  abolished  the  religious  holidays  of  the  ancient 
ciinrch.  These,  at  that  time,  were  little  short  in  number  of  one  day 
in  each  week.  The  original  motive  for  their  institution  was  not 
exclusively  religious.  Those  days  furnished  seasons  of  rest  for  the 
serfs  or  slaves  of  the  middle  ages ;  and  thus,  by  diminishing  the 
profits  of  their  lords,  and  furnishing  themselves  with  such  op])ortU' 
nities  of  education  and  moral  elevation  as  the  times  afforded,  pre¬ 
pared  them  gradually  for  the  free  condition.  By  abolishing  them, 
England  was  enabled  to  present  a  production  of  nearly  two  months’ 
labor,  in  each  year,  more  than  the  other  States  that  still  adhered  to 
the  ancient  system.  The  consequence  of  this  was,  that,  by  increas¬ 
ing  the  amount,  she  diminished  the  value  of  her  productions.  Through 
this  diminution  in  their  value,  she  was  enabled  to  undersell  hei 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


519 


rivals,  first  in  all  neutral  foreign  markets;  and  then,  following  up, 
Avith  energy  and  perseverance,  the  advantages  thus  gained,  she  was 
enabled  to  undersell  them  in  their  oAvn  countries,  and  take  possession 
of  tlieir  own  markets.  Thus  she  began  to  drain  other  countries  of 
their  circulating  medium,  which  became  again  a  new  instrument  in 
developing  still  further  the  advantages  of  her  position. 

At  first  sight,  it  may  a])pear  to  some  that  a  circumstance,  appar¬ 
ently  so  inadequate,  is  insufficient  to  have  brought  about  such  results. 
But  we  may  illustrate  its  operation  by  an  analogous  case,  on  a  small 
scale.  All  over  this  country  there  is  a  class  of  mechanics  occupied  in 
the  manufaclui’e  of  shoes.  But  there  is  in  particular  one  village  or 
town,  in  New  England,  that  is  celebrated  for  the  number  of  its  inhab¬ 
itants  and  the  amount  of  capital  engaged  in  that  branch  of  industry. 
Now,  let  us  suppose  that  the  people  of  that  town  find  it  consistent 
Avith  their  religious  sense  of  duty  to  add  the  labor  ofSunday  to  that 
of  the  other  days  in  each  Aveek.  What  Avilj  be  the  consequence,  in 
regard  to  the  other  shoemakers  throughout  the  country  who  will 
still  feel  the  obligation  of  sanctifying  the  Sabbath  day?  The  conse¬ 
quence  Avill  be,  that  Lynn  Avill  be  able  to  furnish  shoes  cheaper  than 
they,  and  yet  receive  an  equal  amount  of  Avages,  though  for  a  larger 
amount  of  labor.  Her  mechanics,  therefore,  can  undersell  their 
rivals  elseAvhere,  on  the  principle  Avell  understood  in  political  econ¬ 
omy,  that  the  increase  of  production  is  the  cheapening  of  the  value  of 
labor.  Suppose  that  each  Avoi’kman  can  produce  a  pair  of  shoes  per 
da}^  the  shoemaker  of  Lynn  can  sell  seven  pairs  for  the  price  of  his 
Aveek’s  toil,  Avhile  those  of  his  business  in  other  jdaces  can  sell  but 
six  for  the  same  money ;  and  as  the  buyer  has  in  this  his  advantage, 
he  will  purchase  from  the  Lynn  manufacturer  rather  than  from  tlie 
manufacturer  of  his  oavii  tOAvn.  The  money,  consequently,  exi)ended 
for  this  article,  Avill  find  its  Avay  to  Lynn,  and  in  a  little  time,  together 
Avith  the  increased  labor,  Avill  enable  the  manufacturers  of  that  place 
to  break  down  their  rivals  throughout  the  country.  With  this 
increase  of  capital  the  manufacturers  of  Lynn  may,  for  a  time,  in 
order  to  supply  the  increasing  demand  for  their  article,  afford  to  pay 
higher  Avages  to  their  Avorkmen ;  but  the  consequence  Avill  be,  that, 
for  sake  of  this  wages,  the  number  of  Avorkmen  Avill  be  increased, 
and  the  policy,  Avhen  the  supply  shall  have  equalled  the  demand,  Avill 
begin  to  react  upon  the  workmen  themselves,  and  lead  to  a  reduction 
of  their  Avages.  In  its  course,  hoAvever,  that  policy  Avill  have  par¬ 
alyzed  or  destroyed  this  branch  of  industry,  Avherever  those  Avho  are 
engaged  in  it  refuse  to  Avork  on  Sunday.* 

*  It  was  the  discovery  of  this  advantage  which  prompted  the  propagators  of  the 
revolutionary  doctrines  in  France  to  declaim,  with  such  vehemence,  against  the  reli¬ 
gious  festivals  of  that  country.  And,  in  the  wildness  of  infidelity  and  materialism 
which  characterized  the  Revolution  itself,  it  vras  decreed  that  there  should  be  one  day 
of  rest  only  after  nine,  in.stead  of  six  days  of  labor.  In  like  manner,  now,  at  least,  one 
of  the  results  of  the  policy  of  England  has  been  the  abolition,  in  great  part,  of  the 
ancient  religious  holidays,  even  in  Catholic  countries.  And  in  France  itself,  it  is  a 
lamentable  fact,  that  even  the  Lord’s  day  is  no  longer  kept  holy,  except  by  the  truly 
religious  portion  of  the  country ;  but,  as  regards  manufacturing  industry,  the  workV 
are  continued  without  distinction  of  days. 


520 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Thus,  precisely,  has  it  happened  in  the  history  of  manufactures  in 
England,  as  compared  with  the  other  nations  of  Europe.  The  re¬ 
sults  of  the  entire  national  industry,  during  some  forty  or  forty-five 
days  in  each  year,  gave  her  the  first  advantage  over  her  rivals. 
This  brought  her  capital,  and  drained  from  them  their  resources.  It 
made  her  strong,  and  left  them  weak  and  exhausted.  By  means  ot 
capital  she  was  enabled  not  only  to  increase  the  quantity,  but  also  to 
improve  the  quality,  of  her  productions,  to  a  degree  which  they 
could  not  rival ;  and  if,  at  different  subsequent  periods,  they  attempted 
to  revive  their  manufactures,  even  by  ai’tificial  means,  British  skill 
and  British  capital  were  prompt,  even  at  a  ’ittle  sacrifice,  if  neces¬ 
sary,  to  effect  their  extinguishment.  Thus,  England  became  a  mon¬ 
opolist  in  the  market  of  nations — thus,  their  wealth  flowed  to  her 
workshops — thus,  competition  was  destroyed  abroad  ;  and  the  foun¬ 
dation  laid  at  home  for  that  superabundance  of  riches  by  which  she 
has  been  enabled  to  borrow  from  her  own  subjects  almost  the  whole 
of  her  national  debt,  amounting  to  some  eight  hundred  millions  of 
pounds  sterling.  It  is  not  pretended  that  this  is  the  only  cause  of 
the  great  aggregate  wealth  of  England  ;  but  so  far  as  it  conies  under 
the  head  of  Political  Economy,  it  was  one  great  cause,  of  which  the 
comparative  poverty  of  other  European  nations  is  as  manifestly 
another  consequence.  Here,  then,  we  see  the  principle  of  interest 
operating  in  its  national  form ;  and,  thus  concentrated,  pow'erful 
enough  to  sustain  England,  in  competition,  against  the  world.  But 
having  been  successful  in  putting  down  all  foreign  competition,  how 
did  this  principle  operate  on  the  condition  of  its  own  inhabitants? 
The  contest  now  is  among  those  three  classes  into  which  Political 
Economy  is  pleased  to  distribute  her  people.  The  interest  of  the 
manufacturer,  as  a  capitalist,  is  in  the  profits  of  his  jiroduction. 
When  the  markets  are  brisk  and  the  demand  great,  he  will  make 
large  returns  by  his-  investments.  But  still,  if  he  can  cheapen  the 
cost  of  production,  he  will  be  increasing  his  profits  on  both  sides. 
Hence  the  laborer  must  maintain  his  interest,  against  that  of  the 
capitalist.  Both  are  free  ;  and  labor  is  a  commodity  liable  to  rise 
and  fall,  like  every  other  thing,  with  the  fluctuations  of  trade.  But 
the  position  of  the  laborer  is  unfortunate,  inasmuch  as  the  interests 
of  the  capitalist  must  be  provided  for  before  his  can  be  reached. 
He  may,  indeed,  refuse  to  woi’k  for  less  than  fair  wages  ;  but  no 
matter  how  just  his  pretensions  on  that  score,  the  hunger  that  stands 
at  the  portals  of  his  dwelling,  threatening  both  himself  and  his  family, 
if  he  do  not  work,  renders  him  perfectly  unequal  to  the  contest. 
He  must  give  in  ;  for  the  same  policy  which  annihilated  competition 
in  other  nations,  em])loys  that  same  com{)etition  at  home,  for  the 
inci'ease  of  profits  by  the  reduction  of  wages,  or  even  the  occasional 
suspension  of  labor  altogether.  Add  to  this  the  introduction  of 
machinery,  within  the  last  fifty  years.  It  is  estimated  that  the  ma¬ 
chinery  of  England,  in  the  various  departments  of  industrial  produc¬ 
tion,  is  equal  to  the  labor  of  a  hundred  millions  of  workmen.  Be¬ 
sides,  at  the  present  time,  almost  every  nation  has,  at  length,  been 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY, 


521 


aroused  to  the  subject  of  manufactures,  and  has  come  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion  tliat  it  is  wiser  to  encourage  and  employ  its  own  laborers,  than 
to  spend  the  amount- of  money  which  such  employment  may  cost  in 
the  purchase  of  British  goods.  If,  then,  ^ve  take  the  actual  condition 
of  the  poorer  classes  of  Great  Britain,  depending  in  a  great  measure 
on  this  class  of  employment  for  the  means  of  life,  in  connection  with 
the  rising  manufactures  of  other  States,  and  take  in  the  future  which 
statesmen  ought  to  anticipate,  it  will  appear  doubtful  whether,  even 
in  an  economical  point  of  view,  the  policy  of  England  has  not  been  a 
short-sighted  policy  after  all. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  condition  of  the  agricultural  laborers  of 
Great  Britain.  One  would  suppose  that  their  condition  should  be 
improved  by  the  transition  of  so  many  from  their  ranks  to  those  of 
manutacturing  industry.  But  this  is  not  the  case;  for,  as  a  class, 
they  are  not  so  well  off  as  they  were  several  centuries  ago.  They 
cannot,  at  present,  obtain  for  a  day’s  wages  more  than  one-fourth  of 
the  amount  of  food  which  could  be  purchased  for  a  day’s  labor,  up 
to  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  In  an  act,  or  rather  the  preamble  of  an 
act,  passed  in  his  reign,  1533,  “beef,  pork,  mutton,  and  veal”  are 
mentioned  as  the  ordinary  “food  of  the  ])Oorer  wrt so  that  the 
agricultural  laborers  of  the  present  day  require  to  have  three  hun¬ 
dred  per  cent,  added  to  their  actual  wages,  in  order  to  live  as  well  as 
their  predecessors  did,  three  centuries  ago  !  Ilei’e  is  an  awful  dete¬ 
rioration  in  their  condition.  A  precarious,  and,  at  best,  a  scanty 
supply  of  the  cheapest,  and,  consequently,  poorest  kind  of  food,  is 
all  they  can  now  obtain  in  exchange  or  recompense  for  their  inces¬ 
sant  toil.  And  hence  they  are  described  and  represented,  in  public 
and  official  documents,  as  on  the  verge  of  absolute  pauperism.  Why 
and  how  has  all  this  come  to  happen  ?  The  question  is  tlie  more 
startling,  because,  during  this  period,  the  aggregate  ivealth  of  the 
nation  has  increased  many  hundred  fold.  To  my  mind,  however, 
the  answer  is  simple.  It  has  happened,  because,  during  this  period, 
the  whole  practical  economy  of  the  country  has  been  transferred 
from  the  ancient  basis,  and  left  to  be  regulated  on  the  exclusive 
principle  of  universal,  material  self-interest.  It  is  all  very  line,  to 
talk,  as  ^oe  Americans  do,  of  the  “  immense  wealth  of  England 
and,  as  the  English  themselves  do,  of  the  “  sturdy  reliance  and  manly 
bearing  of  a  British  operative” — as  contrasted  with  the  humble  de¬ 
portment  of  corresponding  classes  in  other  European  States.  But 
Political  Economy  has  not  seen,  or,  seeing,  has  not  dared  to  denounce 
the  social  blunder — the  mockery  of  freedom — which  are  ]^resentedin 
the  spectacle  of  the  starving  laborer  maintaining  a  contest  of  compe¬ 
tition  with  the  bloated  capitalist.  Each,  in  that  contest,  is  referred 
back  to  his  own  interest ;  and  while  the  interest  of  the  one  is  to 
increase,  or  at  least  not  diminish,  his  capital,  the  interest  of  the 
other  is  simply  to  escape  a  death  of  starvation  which  is  pressing  on 
him. 

If  these  remarks  be  deemed  sufficient  to  explain  why  the  condition 
of  the  laboring  classes  is  so  much  deteriorated  from  former  times. 


522 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


WO  may  now  pi'oceed  to  explain  how  the  thing  has  been  brought 
about. 

In  order  to  do  this,  it  Avill  be  necessary  to  'recur  briefly  to  the 
social  condition  of  England  antecedent  to  the  change  of  religion  in 
that  country.  Nothing  is  more  true,  than  that  a  large  portion  of 
the  wealth  and  of  the  real  estate  of  the  country  were  in  the  hands 
of  tlie  clergy.  The  origin  of  their  title  was  as  just  and  as  authentic 
as  that  of  any  other  property  in  Europe.  The  wealth  which  they 
possessed  was  the  growth  of  time — the  result  of  their  own  industry, 
economy,  and  the  gradual  increase  in  the  value  of  their  estates.  The 
church,  and  its  principles — or  rather,  the  principle  of  Christianity, 
working  out  through  the  living  agencies  of  the  church — had  become 
interwoven,  to  a  certain  extent,  with  all  the  relations  of  social  life. 
It  operated  as  an  invisible  bond,  binding  together  the  various  ranks, 
classes,  and  conditions  of  the  whole  people ;  and  correcting  or 
reconciling  the  antagonism  of  mere  material  interests,  by  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  other  interests  relating  to  another  world.  It  Avas  as  the 
cement  in  the  social  edifice.  After  the  serfs  of  the  middle  ages  had 
passed  into  the  condition  of  tenants  and  free  laborers,  those  who 
occupied  or  cultifated  the  lands  of  the  monasteries  and  of  the  church 
had  kind  and  indulgent  landlords  to  deal  with.  In  fact,  all  this 
property,  as  to  its  advantages,  belonged  rather  to  the  f'oor  at  large, 
than  to  those  Avho  were  its  nominal  proprietors.  The  law  of  the 
church  regulated  its  uses.  Its  revenues,  by  this  law,  Avere  divided 
into  three  portions.  The  first  Avas  sacred  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
poor ;  the  second  Avas  appropriated  to  the  repairs  of  the  churches, 
and  the  improvement  of  ecclesiastical  property.  Out  of  the  third, 
the  clergy  Avere  entitled  to  their  support ;  and  if  still  there  remained 
a  surplus,  this  also  Avas  a  charge  on  their  conscience,  as  belonging 
to  the  poor.  It  is  not  pretended  in  these  roraai’ks,  that  this  latv  Avas, 
in  all  cases,  strictly  observed.  But  yet,  the  absence  of  all  destitu¬ 
tion  and  suffering  among  the  poor,  except  in  seasons  of  famine,  is  a 
sufficient  proof  that  it  was  substantially  attended  to ;  since  Ave  find 
that  there  Avas  no  other  poor  laAV  needed  in  the  countr)',  except  that 
of  iliin  Avho  said,  “  The  poor  you  have  always  Avith  you,  and  Avhen 
you  will,  you  can  do  good  unto  them.” 

When  the  change  of  religion  took  place  in  England,  the  possession 
of  those  ecclesiastical  estates,  and  this  wealth,  constituted  perhaps 
the  greatest  error  of  the  church.  They  excited  the  cupidity  of  the 
monarch  and  his  parasites.  And  if  monasteries  Avere  denounced  as 
citadels  oftluxury,  indolence,  and  crime — if  celibacy  Avas  held  up  as 
a  variation  from  the  laAV  of  God,  and  an  injury  to  the  Avelfare  of  the 
State,  the  motives  of  the  declaimers  against  both  are  fairly  liable  to 
sus])icion,  Avhen  it  is  remembered  that  the  Avealth  of  the  assailed  Avas 
to  become  the  prey  and  patrimony  of  the  assailant.  The  secular 
clergy  Avere,  with  few  exceptions,  brought  into  the  measures  of  the 
monarch.  The  inmates  of  the  cloisters,  male  and  female,  Avere 
turned  adrift  on  the  Avorld,  and  added  to  the  ranks  of  the  destitute 
whom  they  had  hitherto  been  accustomed  to  relieve.  The  estates 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


523 


of  the  church  -were  seized  by  tlie  ancestors  of  many  of  the  landlords 
and  noble  families  of  the  present  day.  The  tathers  and  mothers  of 
the  j)oor  in  the  religions  communities  of  both  sexes,  that  were  scat¬ 
tered  from  point  to  point  over  the  surface  of  England,  were  driven 
from  their  peaceful  abodes,  and  their  estates  seized  in  the  private 
right  of  private  individuals.  The  consecpience  of  all  this  was,  that 
in  less  than  half  a  century  there  was  not  concern  enough  for  the  poor 
left  leinaining  in  the  hearts  of  the  people  to  provide  for  their  support, 
without  the  aid,  or  rather  the  coercion  of  an  act  of  Parliament.  This 
is  the  first  instance  in  the  annals  of  Christian  nations,  in  which  the 
principles  of  religion  were  found  insufficient  to  furnish  a  spontaneous 
provision  for  tlie  destitute.  The  burthens  of  their  support  necessa¬ 
rily  fell  upon  the  occupants  and  cultivators  of  the  soil.  The  lands 
of  the  church  were  rented  out  on  the  principle  of  the  proprietor’s 
interest,  modified  only  by  two  considerations — one  was  the  extent 
of  competition  among  the  applicants  ;  and  the  other  was,  the  amount 
of  rent  which  might  be  exacted  without  depriving  the  tenants  and 
their  families  of  the  means,  at  least  necessary,  for  subsistence. 
Hence,  weighty  rents  ;  and  as  the  landlords  were  for  the  most  part, 
the  law-makers  also,  hence  too,  in  process  of  time,  those  statutes  in 
favor  of  landlord  interests,  which  in  our  days  are  familiarly  known 
under  the  designation  of  corn-laws.  Does  not  every  one  see  that  all 
such  legislation,  whatever  may  . be  its  other  effects,  must  tend  to 
diminish  the  wages  of  all  the  productive  and  laboring  classes,  by 
either  diminisbfiig  the  quantity,  or  raising  the  price,  of  bread?  So 
that  if  you  look  to  the  relations  thus  created  between  the  laborers 
of  England  and  the  other  two  classes  into  which  political  economists 
have  divided  the  population,  namely,  landlords  and  capitalists,  it 
would  seem  as  if  the  whole  practical  purpose  of  public  economy  has 
been  to  reduce  the  working  people  down  to  that  condition  in  which 
Mafthus  has  discovered  what  he  calls  the  “natural  standard  of 
wages  ” — which  means,  perhaps,  a  little  more  than  is  barely  sufficient 
to  keep  tlje  workman’s  soul  and  body  together. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  perceive,  in  all  this,  the  injurious  effect  of 
the  principle  to  which  we  have  already,  more  than  once,  alluded,  as 
the  actual  regvlator  of  Political  Economy  in  Great  Britain,  namely, 
sel f -inter ent.  Viewed  according  to  the  light  of  this  principle,  it  was 
perfectly  natural  for  those  who  were  at  once  landlords  and  law¬ 
makers,  to  secure  to  themselves  the  largest  amount  of  rents ;  and  to 
throw  off,  on  others,  the  weight  of  every  public  burthen.  In  former 
times,  the  system  presented  the  resources  of  the  poor,  from  the  very 
land  which  produced  the  crop.  But  now,  the  whole  crop  is  claimed 
for  the  benefit  of  the  landlord ;  and  the  tax,  for  the  support  of  the 
poor,  is  to  be  gathered,  not  from  those  who  grow  the  wheat,  but 
from  those  who  eat  the  bread  ;  that  is  to  say,  in  every  nine  cases  out 
of  ten,  from  the  laboring  classes  themselves.  Thus  the  laboring 
classes  of  England  are  placed  as  in  a  cleft  stick,  between  capitalists 
and  landlords,  and  feel  the  effects  of  pressure  from  both  sides :  f  :om 
tiie  one  side,  in  the  reduction  of  wages  ;  and  from  the  other,  in  the 
increased  j)rices  of  food. 


624 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


The  consequence  now  is,  that  in  that  country,  including  the  three 
kingdoms,  there  is  poverty  and  distress,  such  as  cannot  be  found  in 
the  civilized  world  besides.  In  other  countries  there  is  less  of  aggre¬ 
gate  wealth ;  but  in  no  nation  is  there  to  be  found  so  much,  or  such 
intense,  misery,  as  among  the  poor  of  England.  Nothing  can  show 
this  more  fully  than  the  oflScial  reports  made,  from  time  to  time,  by 
order  of  Pai'liament,  on  their  condition.  Leaving  the  condition  of 
the  agricultural  laborers  aside,  the  reports  on  the  condition  of  labor¬ 
ers  in  mines  and  manufactories  present  a  picture  of  physical  and 
moral  destitution  such  as  it  is  appalling  to  contemplate.  We  read, 
for  instance,  of  children’s  being  employed  from  the  age  of  seven 
years  and  upward.  And  why  is  this  ?  Because  a  child  is  as  good 
as  an  adult  person  in  waiting  on  the  evolutions  of  machinery.  Now 
the  wages  of  a  child  is  less  than  that  of  a  man,  and  interest  whispers 
to  the  employer  to  give  the  child  the  preference.  It  matters  not 
that  the  delicate  limbs  of  such  beings  are  unable  to  support  their 
bodies  during  the  long  hours  of  labor.  It  matters  not  that  they  be¬ 
come  deformed,  and  contract  physical  maladies,  which  will  accom¬ 
pany  them  through  the  remainder  of  their  wretched  lives.  These 
things  go  on — for  interest  so  determines  it — until  Parliament  is  at 
length  obliged  to  piass  enactments  to  interdict  such  outrages  off  the 
rights  of  childhood. 

It  is  quite  honorable  to  the  feelings  of  the  English  j^eople  that 
they  should  sympathize  in  the  sufferings  of  those  who  are  in  the  con¬ 
dition  of  slaves  throughout  the  world.  But  while  her  gaze  can  ex¬ 
tend  across  the  Atlantic  ;  and  while  her  honest  and  genuine  sympathy 
is  often  disgraced  by  the  cant  an  1  fanaticism  of  those  who  would 
lie  its  organs,  surely  it  cannot  be  wrong  for  us  to  sympathize  with 
those  of  her  own  population,  whom  avarice,  or  the  interests  of  capital 
have  buried  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth  in  her  mining  districts.  Del¬ 
icate  women  and  tender  children,  as  reported  to  Parliament,  ■^’ere 
found  in  the  mines,  %oith  harness  fitted  to  them,  and  obliged  to  drag 
loads  on  their  hands  and  knees,  after  the  manner  of  beasts.  Passing 
from  these  again,  to  the  pauper  class,  we  see  that  the  Public  Econ¬ 
omy  directs  their  classification  in  a  manner  such  as,  in  some  coun¬ 
tries,  would  be  regarded  as  a  violation  of  tlie  rights  of  human  nature. 
The  dearest  ties — even  those  which  constitute  the  last  sweet  drop, 
in  tlie  cup  of  poverty,  are  rudely  disregarded  and  ruptured.  Hus¬ 
bands  ami  wives,  parents  and  children,  brothers  and  sisters,  are  se])- 
arated  from  each  other,  and  distributed  in  the  establishments  of  jmblic 
relief,  as  if  they  were  malefactors,  guilty  of  some  social  crime.  Now, 
the  worst  feature  in  this  system  of  Political  Economy  is,  not  ])re- 
cisely  tliat  the  facts  are  so  ;  but  that  the  prejudices  of  the  nation, 
like  the  principles  of  the  science  itself,  as  looking  to  individual  in¬ 
terest  as  the  life-spring  of  society,  do  not  allow  them  even  to  con¬ 
ceive  that  things  .ouglit  to  be  otherwise.  And  so  true  is  this,  that, 
according  to  the  recognized  principle,  you  may  pass  all  the  various 
memljers  of  society  in  review,  and  you  will  be  unable  to  discover  to 
whom  the  fault  belongs;  and  in  fact,  according  to  the  principle 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


525 


of  self-interest,  the  fault  belongs  nowhere !  Every  man  for  him¬ 
self. 

It  is  the  contemplation  of  all  this  that  lias  impelled  many  benevo¬ 
lent,  but,  as  I  conceive,  mistahen  persons,  to  conclude  that  society  in 
general  is  organized  on  a  vicious  principle.  Individuals  of  this  de¬ 
scription  have  stood  forth,  in  France,  England,  and  this  country 
also,  flattering  themselves  with  the  hope  of  being  able  to  withdraw 
some  portion  of  their  fellow-beings  from  the  miseries  which  they  re¬ 
gard  as  essentially  connected  with  the  actual  state  of  things.  For 
this  jnu’pose,  various  schemes,  and  schools  of  Political  Economy 
have  made  theii-  appearance,  encouraging  separate  systems  of  private 
socialism,  founded  each  on  some  flivorite  theory.  These  either  have 
fliiled,  or  will  fail ;  and  principally  for  the  reason  that,  while  they 
have  discovered  the  self -interest  which  operates  so  injuriously  in  the 
present  systems,  they  have  not  discovered  in  those  which  they  would 
substitute  any  other  principle  of  sufficient  power  to  correct  it.  This 
can  be  done  only  through  a  renovated  faith,  and  a  practical  exercise 
of  the  virtues  prescribed  by  religion.  The  tendency  of  society  in 
general,  at  least  in  all  that  appertains  to  Political  Economy,  is  in  the 
opposite  direction ;  and  there  is  but  little  hope  that  its  course  will 
be  arrested  until  nations,  as  well  as  individuals,  shall  have  been  pun¬ 
ished  for  their  great  social  error.  * 

IIow  much  ink  has  been  shed  in  describing  the  evils  which  now 
press  on  the  people,  at  least  the  laboring  classes,  of  Great  Britain  ! 
ITow  much  of  profound  meditation  has  been  employed,  in  vain  efforts 
to  find  a  solution  for  the  social  problem  of  that  country !  And 
though  many  of  her  statesmen  have  begun  to  trace  these  evils  back 
to  their  true  cause,  yet  few  have  proclaimed  the  discovery,  and 
fewer  still  have  ventured  to  suggest  the  true  remedy.  Sometimes 
the  evils  are  charged  to  one  cause,  sometimes  to  another.  JIow,  it 
is  the  “  restrictions  on  commerce  and  now,  it  is  an  “  excess  of  popu¬ 
lation  over  and  above  the  wants  of  consumpticm.”  But  no  one  has, 
as  yet,  contended  for  the  true  cause  ;  that  is,  the  absence  of  a  reli¬ 
gious  power  which  should  be  able  to  extend  the  obligatioii  of  duties, 
in  exact  proportion  with  the  extension  of  rights.  The  social  machine, 
in  its  relations  to  Political  Economy,  has  been  left  to  regulate  itself, 
by  the  spring  of  more  individual  interest;  audit  is  manifest  that  the 
weights  and  balances  necessary  to  restore  its  equilibrium  and  to 
regulate  its  motion,  cannot  be  adjusted  except  by  the  invocation  of 
some  extrinsic  power,  such  as  can  be  found  in  practical  Christianity 
alone.  The  earth  is  not  expected  to  furnish  itself  with  light  and 
heat :  these  come  from  the  sun.  So  also,  with  regard  to  the  prac¬ 
tical  Political  Economy  of  modern  nations — unless  its  lips  be  touched 
and  purified  with  living  coals  from  the  altars  of  Divine  Religion,  it 
can  never  accomplish  the  entire  piu’pose,  according  to  which  society 
is  an  institution  of  God.  Any  religion  which  can  accomplish  this, 
whate\’er  may  be  the  truth  or  the  error  of  its  other  dogmas,  will 
have  rendered  essential  service  to  humanity.  It  is  oii  this  account 
that  Political  Economy,  as  a  science,  appears  to  me  inadequate  and. 


526 


ARCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


defective.  It  would  he  more  complete,  and  certainly  more  exalted, 
if,  instead  of  regarding  man  as  the  mere  “  producer  ”  and  “con¬ 
sumer”  of  material  wealth,  it  took  cognizance  of  his  intellectual, 
moral,  and  religious  nature.  It  may,  however,  be  objected,  that 
these  faculties,  being  spiritual  aud  not  material,  have  nothing  to  do 
witli  the  subject.  This  seems  to  me  an  unfounded  conclusion.  The 
ancient  Persians,  for  instance,  held,  as  a  religious  opinion,  that  any¬ 
thing  which  could  defile  the  waters  of  the  ocean  was  sinful.  Here, 
then,  is  an  important  branch  of  Political  Economy — maritime  com¬ 
merce — atfected  by  a  religious  conviction  !  After  the  expulsion  of 
the  missionaries  from  Japan,  the  government  of  that  country  re¬ 
quired  that  the  merchants  of  Europe  who  wished  to  trade  with  its 
own,  should,  as  a  condition,  mie  qua  non,  trample  on  the  emblem  of 
Christianity,  the  cross.  Holland,  alone,  agreed  to  the  terms.  Here, 
then,  the  absence  of  a  religious  conviction  on  the  mind  of  one  nation 
of  Europe  atfected  the  entire  trade  of  Christendom  with  Japan ! 
The  calculations  of  revenue  foi’ined  by  Sir  Robert  Peel  are  founded 
on  the  most  positive  data  of  Political  Economy  ;  and  yet,  an  idtta — 
a  moral  idea— springing  into  the  mind  of  a  humble  but  excellent 
priest  in  Cork,*  disturbs  the  minister’s  conclusions,  to  the  amount  of 
between  two  and  three  millions  of  our  currency,  in  the  annual  excise 
duties  on  one  single  article  !  Time  does  not  permit  me  to  enlarge 
on  the  proofs,  or  facts,  going  to  show  that  not  only  intellect  and  moral 
sentiment,  but  also  the  affections  and  virtues  of  the  heart,  have  all 
of  tliem  an  essential  bearing  on  the  subject. 

In  assuming  the  “  importance  of  a  Christian  basis  ”  for  Political 
Economy,  I  did  not  indeed  imagine,  as  you  may  easily  conceive,  that 
the  system  now  so  deejfiy  and  almost  universally  established,  could 
be  transferred  to  any  other  foundation  than  that  on  wdnch  it  rests. 
But  when  I  consider  the  nature  of  the  evils  which  press  upon  so 
large  a  j>ortion  of  modern  society,  it  seems  to  me  that  a  preventive, 
if  not  a  remedy,  is  discoverable  in  the  Political  Economy  (so  to  call  it) 
of  the  old  Catholic  Church.  She  had,  preeminently,  the  faculty  of 
guiding  the  affections  and  energies  of  mankind,  in  the  direction  most 
requii-ed  by  the  actual  wants  of  society  in  given  times  and  circum¬ 
stances.  She  differed  from  the  modern  religions,  essentially  on  ont 
great  point;  namely,  that,  while  they  teach  that  salvation  is  “by 
laith  alone,”  and  that  good  works  have  no  merit,  though  they  are 
provided  for,  as  consequences  of  faith,  she  taught  that  they  are  to  be 
concomitants  of  belief;  that  fliith  without  works,  is  dead  in  itself! 
and  that  whatever  good  we  do  to  one  of  the  least  of  Christ’s  disci- 
|>les,  He  will  reward  as  if  done  to  himself.  This  is  the  iurninq  point 
of  dilierence  between  the  Political  Economy  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  that  of  the  religions  which  have  been  substituted  in  its  stead. 
Thu.^,  she  created  an  interest  not  to  be  estimated  by  the  acquisition 
or  exchange  of  material  wealth,  but  by  the  consideration  of  advan¬ 
tages  in  tiio  spiritual  order  and  in  the  life  to  come.  This  doctrine, 
like  tlie  j.'rinciple  of  life  in  the  human  body,  vivified  the  spirit,  aud 

*  Father  Mathew. 


SCIENCE  OP  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


527 


influenced  the  actions  of  all  her  memhers.  Besides,  she  conceived 
liunian  nature  as  having  been  exalted  and  ennobled  through  the  Incar¬ 
nation  and  Redemption,  by  the  Son  of  God.  Hence  she  valued 
human  beings  according  to  the  high  dignity  of  their  ransom,  irre¬ 
spective  of  wealth  or  poverty.  She  has,  indeed,  been  rejiroached 
with  the  tendency  to  abridge  the  rights  of  men.  But  the  ex])lana- 
tion  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  tjie  fact,  that  the  inherent  selflslmess  of 
fallen  humanity  prompts  them  to  claim  injurious  immunities;  while, 
as  she  conceived,  her  office  ivas  to  apportion  da  ties  according  to  l!ie 
means  which  providence  furnished  for  the  discharge  of  them.  Men 
are  prompt  to  assert  their  rights  ;  but  prone  to  forget  that  every 
riglit  is  accompanied  with  a  corresponding  duty.  To  every  class 
and  condition  she  assigned  its  own  peculiar  range  of  Christian  obli¬ 
gation.  To  sovereigns  and  legislators,  those  of  justice  and  mercy  in 
the  enactment  and  execution  of  laws.  To  the  rich,  moderation  in 
enjoyment,  and  liberality  toward  the  poor.  To  the  poor,  patience 
under  their  trials,  and  affection  toward  their  wealthier  brethren. 
Toward  all,  tlie  common  obligation  of  loving  one  another,  not  in 
word,  but  in  deed.  Neither  was  this  by  a  uniform  development  of 
the  principles  of  the  Christian  doctrine  from  the  pulpit  alone,  but  by 
a  rigid  process  of  self-examination  and  self-accusation,  which  was 
incumbent  on  every  individual,  when  preparing  for  the  Sacraments 
of  Penance  and  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Here,  the  lawgiver,  the 
landlord,  the  caj  utalist,  and  the  laborer — all  men  of  all  classes — were 
required  to  stand  at  least  once  a  year  \i\  judgment  vpon  themselves.,  in 
the  presence  of  God  and  of  his  minister. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  insinuate  or  assert,  that  these  great  leading 
duties  are  not  set  fortli  to  the  j»eople  by  the  religions  which  have 
taken  the  place  of  the  Catholic  faith  in  Great  Britain.  But  I  think 
it  will  be  evident  that,  in  them  all,  there  are  wanting  the  means  for 
their  ])ractical  inculcation.  First,  because  the  paramount  motive 
has  been  utterly  destroyed  by  rejecting  the  “  merit  of  good  works,” 
and  proclaiming  “salvation  by  faith  alone.”  It  is,  indeed,  alleged 
that,  by  a  higlier  motive  still,  works,  as  the  consequence,  or  fruits, 
or  evidence,  of  faith,  are  provideil  for.  But  still,  tliose  wlio  enjoin 
works  of  this  kind,  since  they  declare  them  to  be  of  “no  merit”  in 
the  sight  of  God,  seem  to  pull  down  with  one  hand  what  they  have 
built  up  with  the  other.  Besides  this,  in  the  new  system  of  religion, 
every  man  claims  to  be  the  judge  of  his  moral  duties,  as  well  as  of  his 
religious  faith.  Thus  you  -perceive  that  the  only  motives  left,  as 
inducements  for  the  performance  of  good  works,  in  this  system,' are 
essentially  of  the  human  and  temporal  order.  Now  the  manifestations 
of  these  fundamental  principles  are  obvious,  in  the  social  develop¬ 
ments  under  the  influence  of  the  two  religions.  Of  its  consequences, 
in  the  one  case,  the  preceding  remarks  of  this  lecture  are  a  suflicient 
exhibition.  Bights  are  claimed — interests  are  prosecuted — every 
one  that  can,  throws  the  burthen  from  himself.  Each  is  the  judge 
of  his  own  moral  and  social  duties — and  self-love  blinds  him  against 
what  would  require  the  sacrifice  of  his  material  interests,  even  if  re- 


528 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


ligion  present(;d  any  adequate  motive  for  making  that  sacrifice. 
Wealth  is  accnmulating  enormously  on  one  side — poverty,  deep  and 
distressing,  spreads  on  the  other:  England  is  the  richest  and  the 
poorest  country  on  the  globe ;  and  where,  or  to  whom,  belongs  the 
guilt  of  this  social  anomaly,  no  man  can  determine! 

The  type  of  the  other  doctrine  has  developed  itself  in  those  prin¬ 
ciples  and  institutions  which  incur  the  censure,  and  sometimes  the 
hatred,  even  of  those  who  are  the  victims  of  their  overthrow.  If 
they  were  errors  in  religion,  it  is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  as  they 
would  have  been  blessings  in  Social,  if  not  in  Political  Economy.  They 
would  have  been,  first  of  all,  a  merciful  resource  for  the  condition 
of  the  poor,  which  now  constitutes  the  great  puzzle  of  Political 
Economists,  throughout  the  three  kingdoms.  Tlie  interests  of  man 
— taking  in  his  spiritual  nature  and  his  eternal  destiny — would  be 
surveyed  from  a  high  and  holy  eminence.  And  when  the  rich  man 
gave  of  his  abundance  to  the  needy,  he  w'ould  be  acting,  not  against^ 
but  according  to  this  principle  of  Christian  interest.  When  the 
prince  or  the  noble,  moved  by  the  “  Amor  Jesn  nohilis,^^  descended 
from  his  elevated  position,  to  put  on  the  sandals,  the  garment,  and 
the  girdle  of  religious  poverty,  in  some  monastic  order,  he  under¬ 
stood,  perfectly  Avell,  what  he  w^as  about — comprehended  the 
advantage  of  the  step  ;  and,  Avhether  he  was  mistaken  or  not,  his 
determination  Avas  of  infinite  importance  to  the  condition  of  the 
destitute.  He  became  jioor  from  a  religious  motive,  having  first, 
jAerhaps,  given  his  property  to  the  relief  of  the  class  to  AAdiose  condi¬ 
tion  he  attached  himself,  He  became  their  mediator  Avith  the  rich 
— his  oAvn  example  had  a  poAverful  influence  on  them — he  represented 
the  necessity  of  alms-deeds — he  spoke  of  their  common  Saviour,  as 
having,  in  his  OAvn  person,  selected  the  condition  of  poA’erty ;  and 
reminded  them  that  Avhatever  they  did  for  their  suffering  brethren, 
Avas  done  for  Christ. 

It  W'as  by  the  spirit  of  this  doctrine  of  good  Avoi'ks,  that  hospitals 
and  asylums  for  the  afflicted,  sprang,  as  if  spontaneously,  into 
•existence,  in  all  parts*of  Gi’eat  Britian,  as  Avell  as  of  other  European 
countries.  It  Avas  by  this  that  every  kind  of  social  eAul,  Avhether  in 
})hysical  suftering  or  in  moral  destitution,  found  wdiole  armies  of  volun¬ 
teers,  ready  to  go  in  the  face  of  jAestilence  and  death,  and  this  Avithout 
human  recompense,  to  counteract  its  ravages.  It  Avas  by  this,  that 
individuals  Avere  constantly  found  ready  to  devote  themselves  to 
every  species  of  good  Avorks. 

The  question  in  connection  Avith  this  subject,  is  not  AA'hether  these 
individuals  Avere  acting  under  a  genuine  principle  of  Christianity  or 
not — but  it  is,  Avhether  their  devotion  had  any  bearing  upon  the 
Political  Economy  of  the  country.  That  it  had,  is  in  my  mind, 
beyond  dispute.  Firstly  :  In  such  a  state  of  things,  no  poor  law 
Avould  be  necessarjG  Secondly :  The  burthen  of  their  support 
Avould  not  be  regarded  as  a  burthen,  but  as  a  privilege,  and  Avould 
fall  on  individuals  in  the  rank  of  landlords  and  capitalists,  instead 
of  laborei'S  as  at  present.  Thirdly :  The  expense  of  supporting  the 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMT. 


529 


poor  ■would  not  be  increased  by  tbe  enormous  sums  which  are 
paid  to  state  officers,  in  that  department.  Fourthly:  The 
ecclesiastical  revenues,  which  have  now  quite  a  different  direction, 
would  be  applied  to  that  purpose.  Fifthly  :  But  besides  all  this, 
the  influence  of  the  doctrine  I  have  alluded  to,  would  infuse  a  spirit 
of  gentle  kindness  into  the  treatment  of  the  poor,  which  would 
leave  no  room  for  those  dark  and  bitter  passions  against  society, 
with  which  their  breasts  are  now,  too  often,  agitated  ;  for  it  is  a 
shocking  feature  of  our  times,  that  distinguished  writers  on  Political 
Economy,  have  gone  so  far,  as  to  maintain  that  poverty  when  it 
reaches  the  point  of  destitution  ought  to  be  treated  as  “  infamy,”  in 
order  to  m.ake  the  struggle  for  self  support  of  the  sinking  laborer 
“  honorable.” 

If  this  reasoning,  and  these  reflections  be  correct  we  see  what 
has  been  the  cause  of  the  prevailing  distress ;  and  what  would  have 
been  the  preventive  or  the  remedy.  And  in  either  case,  the  great 
social  calamity  which  is  every  day  becoming  more  and  more 
formidable,  in  the  estimation  of  British  statesmen  and  political 
economists,  instead  of  being,  as  it  now  is,  apparently  irremediable, 
would  never  have  existed  at  all. 

Some  may  imagine  that  in  following  out  this  subject,  my  judgment 
has  been  warped  by  a  natural  partiality  for  the  religion  to  which  I 
belong.  This  is,  indeed,  possible  ;  but  I  can  only  say,  that  if  it  be 
true,  I  am  entirely  unconscious  of  it.  Neither,  at  the  present  day, 
are  these  views  peculiar  to  Catholics  :  a  declaration  briefly  uttered, 
among  others,  by  a  distinguished  Protestant  statesman.  Lord  John 
INIanners,  expresses  a  similar  conclusion,  when  he  says,  “  that  the 
re-establishment  of  the  monasteries  which  have  been  destroyed,  can 
alone  provide  a  suitable  remedy  for  the  condition  of  the  poor.” 

What,  we  may  now  ask,  would  be  the  influence  of  the  Political 
Economy  of  the  ancient  Church  on  the  class  of  society  immediately 
next  above  pauperism  !  Of  this  we  may  judge  by  the  fact  already 
noticed,  that  during  its  prevalence,  the  English  laborer  could  ex¬ 
change  a  days  work  for  four  or  five  times  the  quantity  of  food 
which  a  day’s  labor  will  now  bring.  But  what  it  may  be  asked, 
had  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  to  do  with  a  result  like  this  ?  They 
had  simply  this :  that  from  principles  already  referred  to,  her 
policy,  if  I  can  use  the  expression,  was  directed  to,  or  at  least 
resulted  in,  two  consequences  ; — one  was,  to  keep  u]!  the  value  of 
labor ;  the  other,  to  keep  down  the  price  of  bread.  Both  of  these 
objects  were  included  in  the  economy  of  religious  festivals,  which 
gave  increased  value  to  labor,  by  diminishing  the  amount  of  produc¬ 
tion.  Rich  and  poor,  assembled  on  an  equality  around  the  altars. 
Those  days  furnished  leisure  for  the  poor  to  be  instructed,  at  least, 
in  their  Christian  hopes  and  duties  ;  as  well  as  to  repose  from  toil. 
The  ceremonies  of  the  Chruch — the  grandeur  and  beauty  of  its 
architecture — the  works  of  painting,  and  art,  and  music  which  could 
be  enjoyed  within  its  walls — exercised  a  refining  influence  on  their 
feelings  and  manners,  in  the  absence  of  that  popular  education 
34 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


£).’i0 

whicli  the  multiplication  of  books  and  the  improA^ements  in  know¬ 
ledge  have  since  so  much  facilitated.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however, 
to  those  Avho  understand  no  more  of  the  subject,  than  the  silly 
charge  that,  “  the  Churcli  in  all  this  encouraged  idleness,”  a  more 
unfounded  imputation  could  scarcely  be  conceived.  The  principle 
of  the  Church,  on  that  subject,  may  be  seen  in  the  rules  of  her 
religious  orders.  In  these,  you  will  find  time  so  distributed,  as  to 
allow  periods  for  labor — for  reading — prayer — repose — but  not  one 
moment  for  idleness.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  also,  that  these  holi¬ 
days  in  no  way  interfered  Avith  the  crops  or  productions  of  the  earth. 
For,  not  only  was  labor  alloAved,  but  in  many  cases,  absolutely 
enjoined,  even  on  Sundays,  when  the  inclemencies  of  the  season 
endangered  the  productions  of  the  earth. 

What  then  was  the  result  in  the  light  of  Political  Economy  ? 
Simply  that  Avhich  Avas  most  important  for  the  consideration  of  the 
laboring  classes.  The  evils  of  over-production  Avei’e  provided  against ; 
and  thus,  the  value  and  adequ.ate  price  of  labor  were  maintained. 
Had  this  system  been  continued,  seasons  of  rest  would  have  been  pro¬ 
vided  for,  and  regularly  distributed,  at  intervals,  throughout  the  year. 
But  these  days  Avere  abolished;  and  after  capitalists  had  realized  the 
advantages  of  the  change,  its  rebound  fell,  Avith  terrible  etfect,  upon 
the  laborers.  Even  at  reduced  wages,  they  have  to  encounter  sea¬ 
sons  Avhen  employment  is  denied  for  weeks  and  months.  And  Avhy 
is  this  ?  It  is  from  over-production  ; — the  very  evil  Avhich  the 
economy  of  the  Church,  in  the  obseiwance  of  holidays  Avas  calculated 
to  prevent.  In  the  actual  condition  of  the  laborers  the  want  of 
employment  is  synonymous  Avith  the  want  of  food ;  and  Avhen  the 
cry  of  distress  rings  in  the  ears  of  their  rulers,  it  is  too  often  ascribed 
to  other,  than  the  real  causes.  Tlie  author  of  the  “  Essay  on  Popula¬ 
tion,”  Malthus,  startled  Europe  with  the  theory,  that  mankind 
increases  in  a  ratio  disproportioned  to  the  means  of  their  support. 
He  maintained  that,  inasmuch  as  population  increases  in  a  geometrical 
ratio,  and  the  agricultural  productions  of  the  earth,  only  in  an  arith¬ 
metical  degree ;  therefore  a  time  must  come,  Avhen  the  excess  of  the 
former  over  the  amount  of  the  latter,  would  require  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  human  race  should  perish  !  In  this,  there  is  some 
ground  to  believe,  that  he  Avas  misled  by  confounding  the  excess  of 
“  production”  Avith  excess  of  “  population.”  If  the  island  of  Great 
Britain  were  the  only  agricultural  soil  on  the  globe ;  then,  indeed, 
Avith  its  present  population,  his  theory  might  be  correct.  But  the 
earth  is  teeming  Avith  fertility,  which  the  industry  of  man  has  not  yet 
turned  to  account.  If  the  interested  policy  of  England  allowed 
other  nations  to  send  their  surplus  agricultural  produce,  in  fair 
exchange,  for  her  industrial  fabrics,  there  Avould  be  no  need  for  the 
invention  of  this  theory.  It  is  estimated  that  the  A’alley  of  the 
Mississippi,  alone,  could  furnish  the  staple  of  life  for  a  population  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions.  And  yet  the  genius  of  Political 
Economy,  in  England,  Avas  such  as  to  conceal  this  fact  from  the  mind 
of  Malthus.  And  instead  of  alloAving  the  bread  of  that  valley  to 


SCIENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


631 


reach  the  hungry  operatives  of  Manchester ; — in  other  words,  instead 
of  diminishing  the  material  interests  of  the  British  landholder,  he 
allowed  himself,  to  be  thrown  on  the  horrible  alternative  of  recom¬ 
mending,  as  a  prospective  remedy,  that  the  increase  of  population 
should,  as  much  as  possible,  be  prevented  by  restraints  on  the 
marriage  of  the  poor.  But  what  is  more  surprising  still,  is  that 
his  theory  should  have  been  received  with  approbation  by  distin¬ 
guished  writers  on  Political  Economy.  Indeed,  so  far  is  this  true, 
that  the  doctrine  is  now  boldly  asserted,  that  in  reality  the  pauper 
has  no  more  right  to  quarter  himself  on  the  public  for  support  than 
the  rich  man  ;  that  if  he  be  so  supported,  it  is  owing  to  the  human¬ 
ity  of  the  public,  but  not  due,  as  a  right,  to  his  condition.  The 
universal  doctrine  prevalent  is,  that  every  man  has  “  a  right  to  do 
what  he  pleases  with  his  own  consequently,  that,  unless  compelled 
by  law,  he  has  a  right  to  refuse  relief  from  his  property,  and  leave 
the  sufferer  to  die  !  When  Sir  Pobert  Peel,  on  a  late  occasion,  de¬ 
clared,  in  Parliament,  that  property  had  “  duties  as  well  as  rights,” 
the  sentiment  was  re-echoed  by  the  press,  with  one  chorus  of  aston¬ 
ishment  ;  as  if  an  axiom  of  morals,  as  old  as  the  Christian  religion, 
were  a  recent  discovery  made  by  the  minister. 

But,  supposing  we  admit  the  correctness  of  the  conclusion  at 
which  Maltims  arrived,  how  awful  and  retributive  is  the  vindication 
which  it  furnishes  of  the  social  economy  of  the  Church  in  the  sanc¬ 
tioning  of  voluntary  celibacy !  The  nation  that  denounced  celibacy 
when  it  was  a  voluntary  choice,  in  the  clergy  and  in  the  monastic 
institutions,  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  recommending  the 
enforcement  of  it  by  compulsion,  in  regard  to  the  poor.  If  that  in¬ 
stitution  had  continued,  how  great  would  have  been  the  public  econ¬ 
omy  in  the  support  of  the  clergy !  One-twentieth  jiart  of  the  reve¬ 
nues  of  the  Church,  at  the  present  time,  would  be  sufficient  to  sup¬ 
port  a  single,  that  is,  unmarried  clergyman,  in  the  proportion  of  one 
to  every  one  thousand  souls  of  the  population.  If  it  be  said,  that 
the  ecclesiastical  revenues  return  to  the  people,  through  some  other 
'■•hannel,  a  better  condition  would  be  that  nineteen-twentieths  of  it 
should  not  have  been  taken  from  them  at  all.  But  even  the  economy 
would  not  be  the  only  advantage.  The  influence  of  such  a  ministry 
of  religion,  acting  in  a  moral  direction,  could  not  but  produce  the 
happiest  effects  among  that  portion  of  mankind  who  are  compelled 
to  toil  daily  for  the  means  of  subsistence.  Their  pleasures  would  be 
of  a  more  rational,  more  elevating,  and,  at  the  same  time,  more  eco¬ 
nomical  description.  Their  feelings  and  manners  would  be  softened 
and  improved,  by  the  influence  of  religion  and  frequent  intercourse 
with  its  ministers.  Their  moral  faculties  would  be  cultivated ;  and, 
if  the  trials  of  life  bore  heavily  upon  them,  religion  would  still  be 
near,  to  console  them  with  the  promised  ho2ies  and  joys  of  another 
world. 

As  it  is,  their  condition,  in  all  these  respects,  is  exceedingly  de¬ 
plorable.  We  may  take  a  few  of  the  answers  given  to  the  commis- 
;  establish  this  point.  The  following  are  given  in  a  late 


j32 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


number  of  the  Edinburgh  Review^  as  specimens  of  the  “  general  igno* 
ranee  ”  and  moral  destitution ; 

“  Ann  Eggley,  aged  eighteen.  ‘  I  am  sure  I  don’t  know  how  to 
spell  ray  name.  I  don’t  know  my  letters.  I  went  a  little  to  a  Sunday- 
school,  but  soon  gave  it  over.  1  walk  about  and  get  fresh  air  on 
Sundays.  I  never  go  to  church  or  chapel.  I  never  heard  of  Christ 
at  all ;  nobody  has  ever  told  me  about  him,  nor  have  my  father  and 
mother  ever  taught  me  to  pray.  I  know  no  prayer.  I  never  pray. 
I  have  been  taught  nothing  about  such  things.’ — App.  Part  1, 
p.  232. 

“  Eliza  Coats,  aged  eleven.  ‘  I  do  naught  on  Simdays.  I  don’t 
know  where  I  shall  go  if  I  am  a  bad  girl.  I  never  heard  of  Jesus 
Christ.  I  think  God  made  the  world,  but  I  don’t  know  Avhere  God 
is.’ — Ibid. 

“  William  Crucbiloxv,  aged  sixteen.  ‘I  can  read  the  Bible — go  to 
school  five  nights  in  the  week.  I  don’t  know  anything  of  Moses. 
Never  heard  of  France.  I  don’t  know  what  America  is.  Never 
heard  of  Scotland  nor  Ireland.  Can’t  tell  how  many  weeks  there 
are  in  a  year.  There  are  twelve  pence  in  a  shilling,  and  twenty 
shillings  in  a  pound.  There  are  eight  pints  in  a  gallon  of  ale.’ 

“  Edward  Whitehead.,  aged  fifteen.  ‘  I  go  to  church  three  times 
on  Sundays.  I  do  not  know  where  Birmingham  is,  nor  where  Lon¬ 
don  is.  I  never  heard  of  Ireland  ;  I  have  seen  Irishmen.’ 

“  William  Butler,  aged  nineteen.  ‘I  go  to  church  on  Sundays. 
I  read  the  Testament,  and  sometimes  in  the  Bible,  but  no  other 
book.  I  can  say  my  catechism.  We  sometimes  work  a  few  hours 
at  a  time.  When  there  is  no  sale,  we  got  no  money,  but  only 
ale,  when  we  leave  at  eleven.  I  generally  get  drunk  on  such  occa¬ 
sions.’ 

“  Peter  Dale,  aged  twelve.  ‘  I  have  been  to  Sunday-school,  and 
can  read  nicely  in  a  spelling-book.  (He  had  been  to  school  about 
two  years.)  Jesus  Christ  was  God’s  Son;  he  wasn’t  born  at  all; 
he  was  nailed  to  a  cross;  he  came  to  save  sinners;  sinners  are  bad 
naen  that  drinked,  and  sweared,  and  lied.  I  think  there  are  sinners 
on  earth  now.  If  I  am  a  good  boy,  and  try  to  please  him,  I  shall 
go  to  Jesus — if  not,  I  shall  go  to  hell.  I  don’t  know  what  disciples 
were  rulers ;  they  did  nothing  wrong ;  can’t  tell  who  the  apostles 
were.  Four  times  five  is  twenty;  five  times  six  is  twenty-eight. 
I  never  heard  what’s  the  biggest  town  in  England.  Scotland  is  a 
town,  isn’t  it,  sir  ?  I  go  to  chapel  as  well  as  school.  I  never  go 
larking  on  Sundays.’ — App.  Part  1,  p.  250.” 

That  these  cannot  be  considered  as  isolated  cases  of  what  the  re¬ 
viewers  call  the  “  general  ignorance,”  may  be  inferred  from  another 
official  statement,  viz.,  that  of  407,894  marriages,  of  all  classes,  in 
England  and  Wales,  within  the  last  three  years,  303,836  of  the  per¬ 
sons  thus  married  were  unable  to  write  their  own  names. 

Such  are  the  results  of  Political  Economy,  as  based  on  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  individual  material  interest.  It  might  possibly  suffice,  if  the 
means  of  protecting — each  his  own  interest — were  equal  in  the  hands 


SCIENCE  OF  rOElTlCAL  ECONOMY. 


533 


of  all.  Tint  what  chance  have  the  poor  against  the  rich  r  the  weak 
against  the  strong,  under  such  a  system  ?  When  all  the  social 
elements  of  material  industry,  of  consumption,  production,- capital 
and  labor,  wealth  of  nations  in  general,  all  resolve  themselves,  by 
common  consent  and  established  usage,  into  mere  personal  selfish¬ 
ness  ?  Could  any  other  result  have  been  reasonably  expected,  by 
men  who  understand  the  feelings  and  passions  of  poor  fallen  nature  ? 
And  what  remedy  can  be  applied  now  ?  Alas !  whatever  remedy 
either  wisdom  or  philanthropy  might  suggest,  will  come  too  late  for 
many  of  the  victims  that  are  sinking  under  this  state  of  things.  And 
it  is  feared,  even  by  wise  men,  that  they  will  lead,  at  no  remote  pe¬ 
riod,  if  they  continue  on,  to  some  social  catastrophe,  such  as  one 
shudders  to  think  of.  Unquestionably,  in  the  system  itself,  there 
are  elements  for  mitigating  these  miseries.  But  the  measures  for 
that  purpose  can  only  be  presented  in  the  aggregate  of  abstract 
interest,  and  are  stilf  violently  opposed  by  the  selfishness  of  coteries, 
and  of  individuals  who  have  power  to  resist  them.  The  only  way 
to  apply  a  corrective  to  the  I'oot  of  the  evil,  would  be,  not  indeed  to 
destroy  the  ])rinciple  of  interest,  but  to  enlarge  it,  to  an  extent  cor¬ 
responding  with  the  whole  nature  and  destiny  of  man,  as  made 
known  thi’oiigh  the  lessons  of  our  Divine  Redeemer.  Bring  temjwral 
interests  into  harmony  with  spiritual — infuse  some  portion  of  the 
attributes  of  God,  justice  and  mercy;  into  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
princes,  of  legislators,  of  nobles,  of  landlords ;  yea,  if  possible,  of 
capitalists  and  money-changers  themselves,  as  the  Christian  rules,  for 
their  thoughts  and  actions  toward  the  weaker  classes  of  their  coun¬ 
trymen.  Persuade  them,  not  only  that  there  is  a  God  in  heaven, 
but  also  that  He  is  the  common  Father  of  all,  rich  and  poor;  that 
they  ought  to  love  each  other.  Bring  their  hearts  nearer  to  each 
other — unite  and  bind  them  together,  not  only  as  citizens  of  the  same 
country,  but  also  as  aspirants  to  the  same  immortal  life  and  eternal 
glory.  Any  effort  toward  this  will  be  a  step  in  the  great  cause  of 
society  and  of  human  nature.  All  this  the  Church  would  have  done, 
without  seeming  to  spend  a  thought  upon  it,  if  you  had  allowed  her 
to  continue  the  peaceful  mission  Avith  Avhich  her  Founder  sent  her 
forth  to  the  nations  of  the  earth.  In  times  of  barbarism  she  was  the 
means  of  erecting  for  your  forefathers  a  noble  and  majestic  social 
edifice,  sufficiently  ample  to  shield  and  protect  them  all.  She  would 
have  enlarged,  improved,  and  adorned  it,  in  proportion  to  your  in¬ 
creasing  numbers,  and  the  varying  wants  of  your  condition.  But 
you  overthrew  this,  and  built  for  yourselves  an  incongruous  and  mis¬ 
shapen  structure.  You  are  fiiin  to  call  it  a  social  edifice !  But  no : 
its  true  name  is  a  temple  of  interest.  Princes,  and  lords,  and  capi¬ 
talists  are  indeed  Avell  provided  for,  beneath  its  glittering  arches — 
a  few  others  still  may  find  protection  Avithin  its  vestibule  ;  but  as  for 
you,  oh  ye  millions  of  the  poor  and  laboring  classes,  Avho  are  called 
and  compelled  to  Avorship  at  its  shrine,  ye  are  strewn  around  its 
outer  porches ;  and,  instead  of  its  sheltering  you  from  the  storm 
and  the  rains  of  adversity,  yon  are  even  drenched  with  the  waters 


534 


AECIIBISHOP  HUGilES. 


that  descend  from  its  roof.  Go  back  among  the  rains  of  former 
things,  you  may  still  find  and  trace  ont  the  deep  foundations  of  the 
better  edifice  you  destroyed.  And,  if  there  be  no  other  hope  for 
you,  co-operate  with  Divine  Religion  in  rearing  up  its  stately  walls, 
and  its  capacious  dome,  beneath  which,  even  as  regards  your  tem¬ 
poral  condition,  you,  or  at  least,  the  heirs  of  your  condition,  your 
children,  may  yet  find  shelter  and  protection. 


EULOG-Y  ON  THE  LATE  BISHOP  FENWICK. 

BY  THE  ET.  EEV.  BISHOP  HUGHES. 


“  I  have  fought  a  good  fight ;  I  have  finished  my  course  ;  I  hare  kept  the  faith. 

“  For  the  rest,  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  justice,  which  the  Lord,  the  Just 
Judge,  will  render  to  me  at  that  day.” — 2  Timothy  iv.  7,  8. 

The  symbols  of  lamentation  by  which  we  now  are  surrounded, 
Christian  brethren,  render  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  say  that  death 
has  been  amongst  us  ;  that  death  has  triumphed  in  our  midst.  The 
habiliments  of  mourning  which  deck  your  church ;  the  dark  livery 
of  the  tomb  uplifted  on  her  Walls,  teach  us  that  all  earthly  greatness 
must  be  subdued  and  silent  in  the  presence  of  the  universal  con¬ 
queror.  The  solemn  and  pathetic  tones  of  the  music  from  yonder 
choir  intimate  the  same. 

Yet  it  is  not  death,  so  called  in  the  pagan  sense  of  the  word.  It 
is  not  the  total  severance  of  the  departed  from  the  survivors,  ima¬ 
gined  by  those  who  have  not  been  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Cliris- 
tian  faith.  We  are  Christians — and  to  us,  since  Christ  died  upon 
the  cross,  death  has  lost  its  power.  It  has  become  consecrated,  so 
to  speak ;  it  is  no  longer  a  chilling  of  existence,  but  a  loosing  of 
earthly  bonds — a  release,  an  emancipation,  through  which  the  spirit 
of  man  is  ushered  into  the  presence  of  his  God.  Before  us  burns 
the  light — the  emblem  of  our  Christian  faith.  Over  us  all  is  the 
Cross,  reminding  us  that  though  it  be  lawful  to  sorrow,  we  are  for¬ 
bidden  to  sorrow  as  those  having  no  hope. 

In  this  case,  indeed,  the  fatal  shaft  has  been  sped  at  no  vulgar 
victim.  The  chalice  of  benediction,  which  you  see  among  the  tokens 
of  mourning,  proclaims  that  it  is  a  Priest  of  the  Living  God  that 
has  been  struck  ;  the  crook,  there  also,  proclaims  that  it  is  not  only 
a  priest,  but  their  head — one  of  the  first  shepherds  of  the  flock  of 
Jesus  Clirist. 

Everything  connected  with  this  occasion  reminds  us  at  once  of 
the  power  of  death,  and  of  death’s  want  of  power.  For  though  it 
be  our  late  father  in  Christ  whom  we  have  lost,  yet,  in  the  light  of 
Christian  faith,  we  are  not  to  regard  him  as  dead.  He  speaks  to  us 
as  one  departed,  whose  teachings  and  ministrations  are  to  be  conse¬ 
crated  to  all  our  souls. 


EULOGY  ON  BISHOP  FENWICK. 


535 


.  Yes,  my  brethren,  the  solemnity  and  mystery  of  an  occasion  like 
this  speak  to  our  souls  through  every  avenue  of  faith  and  religious  feel¬ 
ing.  And  it  is,  therefore,  not  in  a  spirit  of  mere  vain  or  secular  usage 
that  he  who  now  addresses  you  would  call  your  attention  to  some 
circumsiances  in  the  character,  history,  and  life  of  the  deceased.  It 
is  characteristic  of  our  nature  to  do  honor  to  those  who  merit  it,  or 
at  least  to  their  memory  after  they  hai  e  passed  away.  The  great 
conqueror,  the  profound  and  able  legislator,  the  philanthropic  bene¬ 
factor  of  his  race,  the  wise  and  good  citizen  of  his  country — all  these 
look  forward  to  the  meed  of  public  approbation,  in  their  own  time 
or  that  of  their  successors,  and  seldom  is  the  anticipation  in  those 
who  are  really  deserving  such  reward.  But  it  is  not  merely  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  this  dictate  of  our  nature  that  we  would  review  the 
character  and  history  of  him  whom  w^e  have  lost.  He  is  now,  in¬ 
deed,  beyond  the  reach  of  praise,  which,  when  alive,  his  humility 
would  have  disclaimed — nor  are  his  ears  liable  to  be  pierced,  or  his 
feelings  wounded,  by  the  language  of  undeserved  censure  or  unjust 
reproach.  He  has  gone  before  his  Maker,  but  surely  his  survivors 
may  say  of  him,  as  Paul  said  of  himself  to  Timothy — he  has  fought  a 
good  tight,  he  has  kej)t  the  faith.  And  what  he  hoped  for  and 
labored  for  w’hile  in  life,  we  trust  he  has  already  realized  ;  and  that, 
instead  of  the  thorny  crown  which  the  mitre  is,  his  brows  are  now 
encircled  with  that  immortal  crown  of  glory  and  recompense  which 
God  has  prepared  for  his  sincere  and  devoted  servants. 

But  we  are  not  assembled  simply  to  do  honor  to  his  memory  be¬ 
fore  the  altars  where  he  served.  There  is  more.  The  death  of  oui 
Lord  has  been  again  renewed — the  victim  of  propitiation  has  again 
been  offered  before  God — and  the  soul  of  the  Church  breathed  forth 
in  prayer  through  the  lips  of  her  Pontiff,  your  present  pastor,  united 
with  the  supplication  of  her  children,  and  sanctified  by  union  with 
the  Divine  victim  of  mediation  interceding  upon  the  altar,  has 
ascended  like  fragrant  incense  to  heaven.  And  we  would  humbly 
hope  that  our  prayers,  united,  plead  for  him  before  the  tribunal  of 
God,  that  if  he  be  yet  excluded  from  participation  in  the  beatific 
vision  of  heaven,  God  will,  in  his  mercy,  remove  his  earthly  stains 
and  speedily  introduce  his  spirit  to  the  company  of  saints  and  angels 
around  the  throne.  We  dare  not  say  that  the  object  of  our  sorrow 
and  our  prayers  was  without  imperfection.  He  himself  would  have 
been  the  first  to  rebuke  such  language.  He  prayed  that  God  would 
be  merciful  to  him,  a  sinner.  He  acknowledged  his  sin  and  entreated 
for  pardon.  Yet,  though  we  may  not  deny  his  imperfections,  per¬ 
haps  his  frailly,  may  we  not  also  believe  we  have  reason  to  conclude 
that,  if  not  now,  yet  hereafter  and  speedily  he  will  stand  before  his 
God,  purified  of  faults,  to  receive  the  recompense  towards  whose 
attainment  his  whole  worldly  life,  and  his  most  ardent  and  zealous 
labors  in  the  cause  of  his  Creator,  were  unceasingly  devoted  ! 

What,  my  beloved  hearers,  constitutes  the  ground  of  excellence? 
Not  merely  the  exterior  act,  nor  its  success.  But  ^f  we  examine, 
we  shall  find  that  the  excellence  of  any  life,  any  conduct,  any  char¬ 
acter  is  composed — 


536 


AKCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


1st.  Of  motive. 

2d.  Of  action  and  perseverance. 

3d.  Of  sutfering,  when  necessary  to  promote  or  redeen  the  exe¬ 
cution  of  the  first. 

I  propose,  in  this  discourse,  to  examine  the  life  of  the  deceased 
Bishop  of  Boston,  in ,  connection  with  these  three  tests,  by  which 
alone  we  can  form  a  correct  estimate  of  his  actions  and  character. 

On  matters,  of  personal  history  merely,  I  shall  be  brief.  Benedict 
Fenwick  was  descended  from  one  of  the  most  ancient  and  respecta¬ 
ble  families  among  the  Catholic  settlers — or  Pilgrims,  as  it  was  then 
the  custom  to  term  them — in  Maryland,  and  was  born  in  1782.  It 
would  appear,  though  we  know  not  much  of  the  domestic  and  family 
history  of  his  ancestors,  that  his  faith  was  hereditary,  and  that  in 
his  immediate  fiunily  piety  had  its  permanent  abode.  We  may 
mention  as  an  evidence  of  this,  that  two  of  the  brothers,  besides 
himself,  consecrated  themselves  and  their  lives  to  the  service  of 
God,  and  the  S2:)iritual  teaching  of  their  fellow-men,  moved  and  led 
— shall  we  not  say  ? — by  the  influence  of  a  pious  mother  and  an  ex¬ 
emplary  father. 

Placed  early  in  the  college  at  Georgetown,  Benedict  Fenwick 
was  distinguished  for  his  industi’y  and  assiduity,  and  amenity  of  his 
manners,  that  gentleness  of  his  heart,  and  for  mucli  success  in  his 
career.  That  institution  does  not  indeed  hold  forth  those  splendid 
promises  of  universal  science  and  extraordinary  education  which  we 
sometimes  meet  with :  its  language  is  more  modest,  but  it  accom¬ 
plishes  all  to  which  it  does  pretend.  Its  aim  is  chiefly  to  form  the  . 
heart  and  im])rove  the  mind  ;  and  if  it  excels  in  anything,  it  is  pecu 
liarly  in  solidity  as  contrasted  with  pretence.  At  this  institution  he 
finished  his  course  of  instruction. 

lie  had  completed  his  collegiate  education,  and  at  a  time  of  life 
when  other  young  men  are  looking  out  into  the  world,  seeking  how 
best  and  most  they  may  distinguish  themselves  in  the  eyes  of  their 
fellow-men — when  wealth  holds  out  its  allurements  in  prospect — 
Avhen  ambition  and  the  thirst  of  power,  or  the  lust  of  ])leasure — 
when,  at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  all  worldly  inducements  were  be¬ 
setting  him  as  well  as  others — it  was  then,  through  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  that  these  things  lost  all  charm  to  him.  His  eye 
was  attracted  to  the  house  of  Jacob  and  the  tents  of  Israel.  Tliere 
was  in  his  neighborhood  an  institution  of  that  order  of  the  Catholic 
priesthood  which  has  been  distinguished  throughout  the  world  by 
the  success  it  has  met,  and  the  malice  and  envy  that  have  been  ar¬ 
rayed  against  it.  To  that  institution  his  mind  was  drawn,  and  oflered 
himself  as  a  novice  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  and  was  accepted. 

And  here  let  me  pause  a  moment  to  remark,  that  the  motive  which 
prompted  such  an  act  in  such  a  man,  is  one  tlie  elevation  of  which  a 
mere  worldly  mind  cannot  by  any  possibility  conceive ;  because  it 
is  the  eftect  of  confidence  in  the  holiness  of  the  lives  of  those  to 
whom  he  prqjDoses  to  join  himself.  It  is  not  to  secure  protection 
from  the  world’s  evil,  but  i‘  is  as  if  oue  should  say — “here  I  am; 


EULOGY  ON  BISHOP  FENWICK. 


537 


receive  me.”  No  matter  how  lowly  the  lot  to  which  he  may  be 
assigned,  no  matter  what  danger  of  pestilence,  or  disease  he  is  to  ex¬ 
perience,  no  matter  how  remote  the  scene  or  how  distant  the  end  of 
his  labors,  he  has  already  acknowledged  obedience.  He  has  been 
accepted,  and  lienceforward  his  own  will  ceases  to  be  his  rule.  Can 
there  be  self-abnegation  stronger  than  is  shown  here  ?  I  am  aware 
that  this  very  circumstance  is  made  a  ground  of  objection  to  this 
institution  in  worldly  minds,  but  that  point  w,e  are  not  called  on  to 
consider  at  this  time.  I  ofter  to  your  contemplation  the  spectacle  of 
a  young  man  giving  himself  wholly  up  to  God — with  only  one  single 
star  to  guide  his  course'  and  that  star  the  Greater  Glory  of  God  and 
advantage  of  Ilis  kingdom,  with  the  resulting  benefit  to  man. 
Wlien  did  motive  so  pure  ever  influence  a  philanthropist  ?  The 
philanthropist,  indeed,  can  weave  fine  sentences  of  good  will  to  man¬ 
kind,  can  promulgate  splendid  theories  of  benefit  and  progress,  is 
even  c.apable  of  glorious  sacrifices — not,  however,  concealed  from 
the  eye  of  his  fellow-men — and  may  be  an  honor  or  a  treasure  to  his 
race  !  All  this  I  readily  admit.  But  when  did  philanthropist  ever 
act  on  such  a  motive  as  ive  see  here — the  holy,  the  divine  motive  of 
entire  and  sole  devotion  to  God ! 

After  the  completion  of  his  theological  studies,  the  subject  of  our 
discourse  Avas  sent  to  New  York.  This  was  in  1808,  at  which  pe¬ 
riod  there  was  but  one  church,  and  but  one  or  two  clergymen,  besides 
himself,  in  the  Avhole  diocese.  There  are  citizens  now  living  there 
who  remember  his  earliest  ministry ;  who  can  i-ecall  to  mind  the 
humble,  patient,  yet  earnest  and  zealous  priest,  traversing  the  streets 
in  ministration  on  his  scattered  flock,  and  who  are  even  now  moved 
to  te.ars,  in  speaking  of  his  virtue  and  devotion. 

But  he  was  soon  transferred  to  the  New  York  Literary  Institu¬ 
tion,  in  the  conduct  of  which  he  was  for  many  years  connected  with 
Father  Kohlman.  Very  many  among  the  most  distinguished  citi¬ 
zens  of  the  state  and  city  passed  under  Father  FenAvick’s  care  dur¬ 
ing  that  time,  and  all — though  not  of  the  same  religion — concur  in 
speaking  of  him  in  the  same  terms  of  affectionate  regard  and  esteem. 
He  Av.as  called  from  NeAV  York,  in  1817,  to  be  made  President  of 
the  college  at  GeorgetoAvn,  Avhei’e  he  had  receVed  his  education. 

The  selection  of  any  man  as  the  head  of  such  an  institution  cannot 
but  be  held  as  a  high  testimonial  of  the  estimation  in  Avhich  the  indi¬ 
vidual  selected  is  held.  For  a  college  is  a  kind  of  little  republic,  or 
kingdom,  perhaps.  It  requires  in  its  head  all  the  qualities  of  a  good 
ruler  of  a  state.  He  must  have  firmness,  to  insure  order  ;  kindness, 
to  Avin  affection ;  honesty,  justice,  and  virtue,  to  inspire  confidence. 
And  that  FenAviek  possessed  all  these  attributes,  in  a  high  degree, 
is  proved  by  the  fact  that  he  Avas  tAvice  called  upon  to  assume  this 
res])onsible  station. 

But  he  Avas  not  allowed  long  to  remain  in  this  position. 

The  Catholic  Chui'ch  at  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  Avas  then,  or 
about  then,  unha])j)ily  divided  into  factions,  from  the  absence  of  the 
proper  authorities  for  church  government,  and  from  other  circum- 


AKCHBISIlOP  HUGHES, 


i)38 

stances  on  which  it  is  not  proper  to  dwell.  It  is  sufficient  to  remark, 
in  general,  that  the  history  of  the  Catholic  religion  here,  is  essentially 
different  from  that  which  belongs  to  it  in  other  quarters  of  the  globe. 
Catholics,  throughout  all  the  old  world,  have  been  first  to  convert 
the  human  race  from  Paganism  to  Christianity ;  and  in  every  coun¬ 
try  (<f  that  world  the  missionary  of  religion  lias  himself  been  its 
apostle.  Wherever  the  missionary  could  obtain  a  sufficiency  of  hear¬ 
ers  and  worshippers,  there  he  held  the  church  services,  and  all  went 
on  in  that  beauty  and  harmony  which  are  the  essential  characteris¬ 
tics  of  our  holy  faith.  But  here  the  case  was  different.  Here  the 
laity  came  before  the  priests  and  the  bishops,  and  they,  in  turn,  came 
after.  The  faith  was  brought  from  other  lands  by  those  who  w’ere 
not  in  the  order  of  the  clei’gy,  though  many  a  monument  still  re¬ 
mains,  here  and  there,  to  jirove  that  they  were  penetrated  and  im¬ 
bued  with  the  true  living  faith  and  hope. 

There  were  evils,  however,  connected  with  this  state  of  things. 
Difference  of  opinion  must  be  expected  to  arise,  and  where  there  is 
no  sjiiritual  superior  to  settle  a  disputed  question,  a  comparatively 
trifling  variance  may  sometimes  ripen  into  a  standing  feud.  Such, 
unhappily,  was  the  case  at  Charleston.  The  church  was  divided, 
split  into  factions  which  manifested  towards  each  other  too  much  of 
that  bitterness  and  acrimony  which  are  peculiarly  apt  to  characterize 
theological  disputes.  It  was  necessary  to  find  a  remedy  for  this, 
and  accordingly  the  Archbishop  of  Maryland,  the  head  of  the 
church  in  America,  cast  around  to  find  some  clergyman  especially 
fitted  to  bear  the  olive  branch  to  the  contending  factions,  and  recon¬ 
cile  them  to  un.animity  and  harmony.  It  was  not  far  that  he  looked, 
nor  long  that  he  hesitated  ;  for  Father  Fenwick  was  soon  selected 
as  being  eminently  qualified  for  the  successful  performance  of  this 
delicate  and  arduous  task.  Accordingly,  he  re])aired  to  Charleston, 
and  it  was  but  a  few  months — almost  a  few  weeks — before  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  his  example,  his  zeal,  his  prudence,  his  devotion,  had  accom¬ 
plished  the  work.  The  pious  and  Christian  conduct  of  Father  Fen¬ 
wick,  in  his  pastoral  charge,  acted  like  oil  poured  upon  troubled 
waters.  It  smoothed  down  the  ruggedness  of  ffiction  ;  it  softened 
the  .asperity  of  difference;  audit  converted  the  church,  from  a  col¬ 
lection  of  disjointed  and  discordant  fragments,  into  what  a  church 
ought  to  be,  a  symmetrical  and  harmonious  whole. 

From  this  honorable  but  laborious  ministry  he  was  relieved  by 
the  coming  of  Bishop  Enghand,  and  recalled  to  the  Presidency  of 
Georgetown  College,  which  he  again  filled  for  one  or  two  years. 
He  was  then  sent  to  supply  the  place  of  the  vener.al)le  Father  Neale, 
the  late  he.ad  of  a  small  sonety  of  ladies  belonging  to  the  Carmelite 
order,  in  Charles  county,  Maryland.  While  fulfilling  the  duties  of 
this  humble  station,  pursuing  the  tenor  of  his  way  almost  unknown 
to  the  world,  and  quite  out  of  the  sight  of  his  fellow-men,  he  received 
— to  his  own  exceeding  astonishment — not  only  an  appointment  to 
the  position  he  so  long  held  there,  but  a  positive  comm.and  from  the 
Supreme  Pontiff  of  Rome,  that  he  should  assume  its  various  duties 


EULOGY  ON  BISHOP  FENIVICK. 


639 


and  respoiisibilities.  At  that  time  the  mode  of  selection  for  incum¬ 
bents  for  such  elev’ated  stations  was  ditfei’ent  from  what  it  now  is, 
where  a  general  council  of  the  higher  clergy  is  assembled  to  designate 
and  recommend  a  suitable  individual.  Then,  when  the  whole  church 
in  this  country  was  but  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  in  comparison  with 
what  it  has  since  become,  such  a  proceeding  was  obviously  imprac¬ 
ticable.  The  appointment  proceeded  directly  from  the  Pope,  who 
in  this  case,  it  is  possible  or  probable,  was  induced  to  the  selection 
of  Bishop  Fenwick  through  the  recommendation  of  the  lamented 
Cardinal  Cheverus,  whose  excellent  qualities  so  endeared  him  to  the 
hearts  of  the  people  while  Bishop  of  Boston.  lie  had  departed  from 
the  diocese,  but  his  former  spiritu.al  bride  was  still  dear  to  his  soul, 
and  it  ivas  natural  that  he  should  feel  a  deep  interest  in  her  welfiire. 
Owing,  probably,  to  that  interest  it  was  that  Father  Fenwick,  the 
humble  and  retired  priest  of  an  obscure  monastery,  was  ordered  to 
take  charge  of  this  diocese. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  say  much  of  the  state  of  the  Church  here  at 
that  time.  But  I  would  remark,  that  there  was  but  one  church 
where  now  they  are  numerous  ;  there  were  but  two  clergymen,  I 
believe,  whereas  to-day  the  sanctuary  is  surrounded  by  a  numerous 
body  of  zealous  and  able  priests.  The  whole  diocese  was  but  a  wil¬ 
derness,  while  now  it  is  full  of  the  signs  of  prosperity  and  success. 
And  though  it  is  true  that  the  increase  of  the  Church  has,  to  a  great 
extent,  come  from  abroad,  yet  it  is  no  less  true  that  many,  very 
many  of  her  children  have  been  won  to  her  bosom  by  the  influence 
of  his  exam})le  and  holy  devotion. 

Looking,  then,  at  the  life  of  Bishop  Fenwick  from  first  to  last,  do 
we  not  find  that  he  has  labored  in  his  vocation  with  a  steadiness, 
perseverance  and  constancy  worthy  of  all  praise  ?  W e  see  him, 
after  entering  the  priesthood,  obedient  in  all  things  to  his  instruc¬ 
tions  and  his  superiors ;  seeking  not  to  select  his  own  path,  consult¬ 
ing  not  his  own  wishes,  but  compliant  to  the  judgment  and  direction 
of  those  above  him.  Ordered  to  the  South,  the  land  of  pestilence 
and  disease,  he  went  with  an  unrepining  spirit,  and,  while  there, 
ministered  the  holy  truths  of  our  religion  alike  to  the  colored  and 
ignorant  servant,  and  the  master,  of  another  hue  and  of  cultivated 
mind.  Becalled  thence,  he  took  with  equal  willingness  and  obedi¬ 
ence  the  position  of  President  of  a  college  of  learning,  and  the  hum¬ 
ble  ])ost  of  spiritual  teacher  to  a  small  and  sequestered  society.  At 
last  he  was  sent  here  to  take  upon  himself  the  burden  of  his  bishopric, 
and  you  can  .all  bear  witness  to  the  earnestness  of  his  zeal  and  the 
fidelity  of  his  labors  in  that  important  charge. 

And  what  is  the  nature  and  character  of  such  a  charge  ?  If  St. 
Chrysostom  ch.aracterized  the  relation  of  the  priest  to  his  people  .as 
one  of  dignity,  labor,  and  responsibility — if  he  be,  on  earth,  not  only 
an  extension  but  a  p.artner  of  Christ — if,  when  imbued  with  the  true 
spirit  of  his  c.alling,  he  be  another  Christ — how  much  more  does  all  t  his 
aj)])ly  to  the  Bishop,  the  shepherd  of  .all  the  priests  as  well  .as  of  the 
people !  The  dece.ased  prelate  came  to  his  post  in  that  true  spirit, 


540 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


and  liis  labors  were  perpetual  during  the  twenty-one  years  that  he 
bore  the  burden  of  episcopacy.  And  though  in  society,  which  he 
was  so  competent  to  adorn,  it  might  appear  that  he  had  no  care,  you 
misconceived  greatly  if  you  suppose  that  there  was  ever  one  moment 
when  he  was  unconcerned  touching  those  things  which  Christ  had  en¬ 
trusted  to  him  as  his  sub-delegate  on  earth.  If  you  have  care  for  your¬ 
selves,  and  if  your  cares  are  increased  as  your  families  increase ;  still 
more,  if  you  are  called  to  office  over  your  fellow-men,  how  can  you 
imagine  that  the  pastor,  the  religious  teacher,  is  ever  indifferent  to 
the  condition  of  a  single  sheep  or  a  single  lamb  of  his  flock  ?  But 
instead  of  a  simple  priest  take  the  case  of  the  Bishop,  the  head  of 
them  all ;  him  whose  whole  conduct  is  ever  narrowly  scrutinized — 
at  whom  are  directed  the  shafts  of  reproach,  if  there  be  any  ground 
for  it,  and  not  unfrequently  of  calumny — who  sometimes  has  much 
to  dread  from  the  imprudence  or  over-zeal  of  his  inferior  teachers — 
who  knows  not  when  he  rises  but  that  the  day’s  mails  from  all  quar¬ 
ters  may  bring  distressing  tidings  for  the  Church  ;  and  suppose  him, 
above  all,  to  be  imbued  with  a  deep  sense  of  the  holiness  of  his  office 
and  awful  responsibility  resting  on  him ;  picture  this  to  yourselves, 
and  then  imagine,  if  you  can,  that  the  mind  of  such  a  man  can  ever 
be  without  care!  No,  my  brethren  !  Labor,  and  pain,  and  suffer¬ 
ing  are  the  lot  of  the  Bishop ;  and  this  is  why  St.  Thomas,  though 
he  calls  it  a  good  thing,  calls  it  also  martyrdom.  Not  a  natural,  but 
a  moral  martyrdom  :  an  ever-active  spiritual  solicitude,  an  anxiety 
of  the  soul  none  the  less  real  because  unsuspected  of  the  world. 

There  may  have  been  nothing  very  bold,  salient,  or  striking  in  the 
character  of  the  deceased  prelate.  But  men  are  too  often  apt  to  be 
mistaken  through  signs  or  semblance,  where  there  is  no  reality. 
They  are  misled  by  fame,  that  false  and  empty  sound.  But  if  we 
look  for  God’s  estimate  of  character,  we  shall  not  find  it  made  up 
from  human  fame.  And  do  we  find  in  the  history  of  the  Church  that 
the  earliest  and  ablest  teachers  of  God’s  word  had  anything  wild, 
dazzling,  or  extraordinary  about  them?  No.  Quietness  and  stead¬ 
iness  were  their  attributes.  They  sought  not  to  attract  the  eyes  of 
one  or  another  by  startling  display,  but  walked  in  their  appointed 
path,  shedding  abroad  a  spirit  of  fecundity  and  blessing,  even  as  the 
silejit  dew  descends  from  heaven  to  fertilize  the  earth.  So  was  it 
with  Bishop  Fenwick.  In  prudence,  he  excelled.  Patience  was  not 
difficult  for  him  to  practice,  for  patience  was  natural  to  his  soul. 
Kindness,  mercy,  tenderness  towards  every  species  of  human  suffer¬ 
ing — these  were  qualities  which  eminently  clistinguished  him.  To 
labor  so  perseveringly  in  the  execution  of  an  original  purpose ;  to 
suffer,  an<l  that  constantly  (if  it  be  suffering  in  giving  up  one’s  own 
will,  with  the  liability  to  have  one’s  motives  misconceived  and  actions 
misi’eiireseuted  ;  to  be  accused  of  tyranny  if  acting  with  enei’gy,  and 
of  indifference  and  apathy  if  not)  for  forty  years  of  his  life — never 
flagging,  but  constant  in  the  way  not  of  his  own  choosing,  but 
according  as  the  will  of  God  directed — if  all  this  can  constitute 
greatness,  who  can  deny  that,  according  to  all  Christianity  and 


EULOGY  ON  BISHOP  FENWICK. 


541 


true  estimate,  Bisliop  Fenwick  deserves  to  be  ranked  among  the 
great. 

It  is  unnecessary,  in  the  presence  of  his  former  colleagues,  to  say 
what  is  the  opinion  of  the  judgment  and  prudent  conduct  of  him, 
who,  whilst  alive,  perhaps  was  not  sufficiently  esteemed. 

I  might  refer  to  some  of  the  circumstances  which  attended  his 
ministry  here,  and  especially  to  that  trial  which  to  him  was  indeed  a 
sword  of  sorrow,  piercing  the  soul.  A  delicate  and  interesting  leg 
acy  had  been  left  to  him  by  his  predecessor ;  it  was,  as  you  know, 
a  little  society  of  religious  females,  who  passed  their  days  in  the 
A^'orship  of  God,  and  the  instruction  of  a  small  number  of  the  youth¬ 
ful  of  their  own  sex.  Over  that  house  he  watched  ivitli  earnest  care, 
and  was  not  denied  the  consolation  of  seeing  it  flourish  as  a  beautiful 
bud,  shedding  its  sweetness  and  perfume  around.  Under  the  mild 
and  gentle  influence  of  his  counsels  and  his  teachings,  the  youthful 
tenants  of  those  walls  grew  up  with  joyous  hearts,  for  innocence  was 
there,  and  wherefore  should  joy  be  absent?  The  summer  sun 
passed  over  that  house  and  sunk  in  the  west,  looking  down  on  an 
abode  of  happiness  and  peace.  lie  rose  next  morning  to  behold  it 
but  a  heap  of  blackened  and  smouldering  ruins. 

We  read  of  the  shepherds  being  taken  and  the  flock  destroyed. 
Here  the  flock  ivas  dispersed,  but  the  shepherd  had  not  escaped. 
No  one  can  imagine  the  agony  of  his  heart.  But  I  appeal  to  your- 
Belves  if  he  ever,  even  for  an  instant,  manifested  the  least  want  of 
Christian  charity — if  he  did  not,  on  the  contrary,  always  display  a 
patience,  under  long  suftering,  peculiarly  his  oivn  ?  He  was  not  a 
man  of  restricted  information ;  he  knew  the  history  and  spirit  of  his 
race,  and  the  depths  of  the  human  heart ;  he  knew  that  not  only 
here,  but  even  more  elsewhere,  it  was  impossible  to  ivholly  eradicate 
from  the  minds  of  the  populace  prejudice  and  passion  and  injustice; 
and  that  when  their  baser  feelinfvs  were  stirred  and  their  hatred 
stimulated  into  action,  it  ivas  futile  to  attempt  to  stay  them  m  their 
violence.  He  knew  all  this,  and  ivhile  he  bitterly  deplored  the  deed 
of  the  basest  and  vilest  portion  of  the  people,  he  dreamt  not  of 
throwing  odium  on  the  better  classes.  He  lamented  the  deed  as 
a  dishonor  and  disgrace  to  the  country  ivhich  he  loved  as  his  own, 
but  he  was  the  first  to  record,  and  with  unfeigned  admiration,  the 
many  testimonials  of  sympathy  and  regard  he  received  from  the 
noble  and  public-spirited  citizens  of  Boston — a  portion  of  whom 
came  forward  with  princely  liberality  to  tender  their  assistance. 
They  otfered  to  rebuild  the  convent  at  once.  If  possible,  they 
would  eftace  every  vestige  of  the  violence  of  th.at  infuriated  rabble 
even  before  the  tidings  could  reach  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State. 

He  declined  these  noble  offers,  and  there  are  those  who  thought 
he  did  wrong.  They  thought  he  should  have  accepted  what  was  so 
promptly  and  generously  tendered — that  it  was  due  to  the  better 
class  of  the  citizens  to  give  them  the  opportunity  they  desired  of 
wiping  out  at  once  the  stain  upon  the  honor  of  their  city.  But 
Bishop  Fenwick  was  an  American — not  a  stranger  in  the  laud.  He 


542 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


understood  his  rights  and  the  duties  of  his  country,  and  he  believed 
he  ouglit  not  to  accept  from  private  charity  and  benevolence  what, 
ill'  common  justice,  it  was  the  country’s  duty  to  afford  him.  For 
that  justice  he  asked,  but  alas!  it  was  not  measured  out  to  liim. 
Twelve  times  has  the  sun  gone  round,  and  twelve  times  did  that 
wound  in  his  heart  open  and  bleed  afresh,  till  at  last,  on  the  anni¬ 
versary  of  the  day  of  the  destruction,  that  heart  ceased  to  beat  forever. 
It  is  not  our  province  now  to  say  whether  his  course  on  that  occa¬ 
sion  was  expedient  or  inexpedient.  lie  acted  from  principle,  and  to 
that  principle  he  adhered.  There  was  no  wavering  of  purpose — no 
vacillation  in  intent.  Long  has  reparation  of  the  wrong  been  de¬ 
nied,  yet  none  can  say  they  ever  lieard  from  the  Bishop’s  lips  a  word 
of  denunciation,  unworthy  of  the  Christian  and  the  prelate,  of  those 
who  have  constituted  the  hindrance  to  his  hopes.  For  the  sponta¬ 
neous  sympathy  and  genei-ous  proffers  of  assistance  he  received  he 
had  ju-aises  ;  for  the  country’s  tardiness  to  do  him  justice  he  had  no 
reproach,  but  simply  said  he  would  wait  for  better  times,  when  the 
hearts  of  his  enemies  should  be  softened  and  their  eyes  opened  to  the 
right. 

I  need  not  say  how  Bishop  Fenwick’s  character  endeared  him  to 
his  people.  His  kindness  in  authority,  his  delicacy  in  the  hour  of 
agony  made  a  deep  impression  on  the  hearts  of  all  connected  with 
him,  wh.ile  the  grief  of  his  sorrowing  and  afflicted  flock  speaks  for 
itself  of  the  attachment  he  inspired  and  the  imjtression  his  virtues 
have  made. 

But  I  can  dwell  no  longer  on  this  topic.  He  who  for  forty  years 
has  labored  in  the  service  of  his  Master — who  for  forty  years,  like 
that  Master,  has  done  not  his  own  will  but  the  will  of  Him  that-sent 
him — whose  thoughts  by  day  and  by  night  have  been  consecrated  to 
the  spiritual  well-being  of  the  flocks  committed  to  his  charge — whose 
he.art  has  been  the  repository  of  the  afflictions,  and  whose  sympa¬ 
thy  the  source  of  consolation  in  the  sorrows  of  all  his  people — he 
has  passed  away'!  The  offleer  has  gone,  but  not  the  office — for  that 
always  remains,  and  its  duties  are  now  performed  by  one  of  his  own 
selection,  a  candlestick  which  he  himself  placed  upon  the  altar.  He 
has  departed — but  not  until  he  had  surrounded  himself  with  a  nu¬ 
merous  body  of  pious  and  devoted  clei’gy,  whose  warm  affection  for 
him  is  his  brightest  monummnt.  He  was  their  flither,  but  also  their 
equal.  To  them  he  was  as  an  elder  brother — their  counsellor,  their 
example.  And  I  may  appeal  to  .all  of  them  to  say  if  there  was  ever 
one  inst.anee  when,  in  sorrow  .and  affliction,  they  had  recourse  to  the 
kind,  enliglitened  and  discreet  tenderness  of  their  Bishop,  without 
being  met,  on  his  })art.  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  holiness  and  broth¬ 
erly  love. 

ills  sickness  Avas  another  labor.  It  was  painful  .and  distressing. 
It  Avas  announced  to  him  beforehand  that  he  could  not  smwive — .and 
he,  the  man  that  for  forty  years  had  known  no  glory  but  that  of  his 
Master,  and  given  himself  to  no  work  but  th.at  of  God,  th.at  man — 
iiotAvithstauding  his  humility,  if  that  humility  would  permit — could 


EULOGY  OIC  BISHOP  FENWICK. 


543 


look  back  through  all  his  course  in  life,  and  say  with  the  Apostle, 
“  I  have  fought  the  good  fight ;  I  haved-iept  the  faith.”  In  a  word, 
from  the  moment  when  first  he  consecrated  himself  to  God,  to  the 
latest  breath  of  his  life,  we  find  in  him  but  one  continuous  act — the 
making  himself  a  victim  in  the  cause  of  the  Lord. 

Such  Avas  the  life  of  Bishop  Fenwick.  And  if,  as  I  have  said,  a 
pure,  and  high,  and  holy  motive,  combined  Avith  const.ant  labor  and 
the  endurance  of  .all  sutfering,  constitute  greatness,  then  was  he 
gre.at  indeed.  Even  in  his  humility  he  Avas  great.  His  memory,  as 
a  Prince  of  the  Church,  is  great.  The  influence  of  his  example  is 
great.  And  not  only  was  he  great  in  life,  but  he  is,  and  Avill  forever 
be  great,  because  there  is  a  continuity  in  the  works  of  God,  .and 
goodness  and  greatness  will  last  through  eternity.  We  can  little 
conceive  the  true  measure  of  such  greatness,  unless  we  can  lift  our- 
seh'es  above  the  Ioav  standard  of  life  and  the  groveling  propensities 
Avhich  beset  us  in  the  Avorld,  and  seek  to  att.ain  the  high  and  pure 
atmosphere  of  heax^en. 

Your  late  Bishop’s  end  Avas  in  accordance  with  the  whole  tenor 
of  his  life.  He  did  not  escape  much  sutfering,  but  it  Avas  softened 
by  the  attention  and  sympathy  of  many,  eager  to  mitig.ate  his  p.angs. 
And  in  this  connection  I  ought  not  to  omit  to  mention  the  kindness  of 
the  authorities  .and  citizens  of  the  town,  who  took  every  means  to 
spare  him  from  annoyance  during  his  last  hours.  I  am  sure  they 
have  the  hearty  tlianks  of  all  his  people.  In  .all  his  sutfering,  not 
one  word  of  murmur  and  complaint  escaped  his  lips.  God,  as  a 
reward  for  such  a  life,  preseiwed  his  senses  clear,  and  his  mind  un¬ 
clouded  to  the  end,  and  his  last  Avords  were  a  fervent  prayer  to 
Jesus  to  receive  his  spirit. 

He  sleeps  beneath  the  monument  he  himself  h.ad  raised,  though  he 
dreamt  not  it  Avould  be  for  him.  Every  day  a  shadoAv  from  its 
top  is  cast  by  the  sun  of  heaven  upon  the  bed  of  his  slumber,  and 
every  day  the  pupils  Avhom  he  t.aught  and  Avhom  he  loved,  bre.atlie 
OAmr  his  remains  a  prayer.  When  they  kneel  before  their  God, 
they  offer  a  petition  for  the  repose  of  his  spirit,  believing  and  knoAV- 
ing  that  he  is  praying  for  and  Avatching  over  them  .and  all  of  us. 

^  His  broAvs  are  now  encircled  by  the  croAvn  of  glory  which  Christ, 
the  chief  of  Bishops,  has  prepared  for  those  Avho  with  him  are  to 
reign  for  ever  and  eA'^er.  Let  us,  my  beloved  brethren,  endeavor  so 
to  Iwe  that  we  m.ay  make  our  calling  and  election  sure,  that  Ave  m.ay 
join  Avith  him  who  has  gone  before,  in  eternal  praise  before  the 
throne  of  God 


644 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


A  LECTURE  ON  THE  ANTECEDENT  CAUSES  OF 
THE  IRISH  FAMINE  IN  1847. 

DELIVERED  UEDER  THE  AUSPICES  OF  THE  GENERAL  COMMITTEE 

FOR  THE  RELIEF  OF  THE  SUFFERING  POOR  OF  IRELAND,  BY  THE 

RIGHT  REV.  JOHN  HUGHES,  D.  D.,  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK,  AT  THE 

BROADWAY  TABERNACLE,  MARCH  20,  1847. 

The  year  1847  will  be  rendered  memorable  in  the  future  annals 
of  civilization,  by  two  events;  the  one  immediately  preceding  and 
giving  occasion  to  the  other  ;  namely,  Irish  famine,  and  American 
sympathy  and  succor.  Sympathy  has,  in  its  own  right,  a  singular 
power  of  soothing  the  moral  sulferings  of  the  forlorn  and  unfor¬ 
tunate.  There  is  no  heart  so  flinty,  but  that,  if  you  aj)proach  it  with 
kindness,  touch  it  gently  Avith  the  magic  Avand  of  true  sympathy,  it 
will  be  melted,  like  the  rock  of  the  Avilderness,  and  tears  of  gratitude 
on  the  cheeks  of  the  sufferer  will  be  the  prompt  and  natural  response 
to  those  of  interest,  of  pity,  of  affection,  which,  in  imagination,  he 
will  have  discovered  on  yours.  Who  will  say  that  Ireland  is  not  an 
unfortunate  sufferer  ?  But  since  her  sufferings  have  become  known 
to  other  and  happier  nations,  Avho  Avill  say  that  she  is  forlorn  ?  Amer¬ 
ica  offers  her,  not  a  sympathy  of  mere  sentiment  and  feeling,  but 
that  substantial  sympathy  Avhich  her  condition  requires.  When  the 
first  news  of  your  benevolence,  and  of  your  effbrts,  shall  have  been 
wafted  across  the  ocean,  it  will  sound  as  SAveetly  in  her  agonized  ear 
as  the  voice  of  angels  whispering  hope.  It  will  cause  her  tamine- 
shrunken  lieart  to  expand  again  to  its  native  fullness,  whilst  from 
day  to  day  the  Avestern  breezes  will  convey  to  her  echoes  of  the 
rising  song,  the  SAvelling  chorus,  the  universal  outburst,  in  short,  of 
American  sympathy.  The  bread  with  which  your  ships  are  freighted 
will  arrive  too  late  for  many  a  suflTering  child  of  hers  ;  but  the  news 
that  it  is  coming  Avill  perchance  reach  the  peasant’s  cabin,  in  the  final 
liour  of  his  mortal  agony.  Unable  to  speak,  gratitude  Avill  wreath, 
in  feeble  smile,  for  the  last  time,  his  pinched  and  palid  countenance. 
It  is  the  smile  of  hope,  as  Avell  as  of  gratitude  ;  hope,  not  for  him¬ 
self,  it  comes  too  late  for  that,  but  for  his  pale  Avife  and  fixmished 
little  ones.  lie  Avill  recline  his  head  more  calmly  ;  he  Avill  die  with 
yet  more  subdued  resignation ;  having  discovered,  at  the  close  of  his 
life,  that  truth,  which  the  Avhole  training  and  experience  of  his  hard 
lot  in  this  world  had  almost  taught  him  to  deny,  namely,  that  there 
is  humanity  in  mankind,  and  that  its  blessings  are  about  to  reach 
even  his  cabin,  from  a  quarter  on  Avhich  he  had  no  other  claim  than 
that  of  his  misfortune. 

But  I  have  not  come  here  to  enlarge  upon  the  feelings  of  symjxathy 
that  have  been  aroused  in  our  OAvn  bosoms,  nor  yet  07\  those  of  grat¬ 
itude  that  will  soon  be  aAvakencd  in  the  breasts  of  the  Irish  people. 
1  come,  not  to  describe  the  inconceivable  horrors  of  a  calamity  Avhich, 
in  the  midst  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty- 


LECTURE  ON  THE  IRISH  FAJtfINE, 


545 


seven  years  after  tlie  coming  of  Christ,  either  by  want  or  pestilence,  or 
both  combined,  threatens  almost  the  annihilation  of  a  whole  Christian 
people.  The  newspapers  tell  us  that  this  calamity  has  been  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  fiilure  of  the  potato  cro)) ;  but  this  ouglit  not  to  be  a 
sufficient  cause  of  so  frightful  a  consequence ;  the  potato  is  but  one 
species  of  tlie  endless  varieties  of  food  which  the  Almighty  has  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  sustenance  of  his  creatures ;  and  why  is  it  that  the  life 
or  death  of  tlie  great  body  of  any  nation  should  be  so  little  regarded 
as  to  be  left  dependent  on  the  capricious  growth  of  a  single  root  ? 
Many  essays  will  be  published  ;  many  eloquent  speeches  pronounced  ; 
much  precious  time  unprofitably  employed,  by  the  State  economists 
of  Great  llritain,  assigning  the  cause  or  causes  of  the  scourge  which 
now  threatens  to  depopulate  Ireland.  I  shall  not  enter  into  the  im¬ 
mediately  antecedent  circumstances  or  influences  that  have  produced 
this  result.  Some  will  say  that  it  is  the  cruelty  of  unfeeling  and 
rapacious  landlords ;  others  will  have  it,  that  it  is  the  improvident 
and  indolent  character  of  the  people  themselves  ;  others,  still,  will 
say  that  it  is  owing  to  the  poverty  of  the  country,  the  want  of  cap¬ 
ital,  the  general  ignorance  of  the  people,  and  especially  their  igno¬ 
rance  in  reference  to  the  improved  science  of  agriculture.  I  shall 
not  question  the  trutli  or  the  fallacy  of  any  of  these  theories  ;  admit¬ 
ting  them  all,  if  you  will,  to  contain  each  more  or  less  of  truth,  they 
yet  do  not  explain  the  famine  which  they  are  cited  to  account  for. 
They  are  themselves  to  be  accounted  for,  rather  as  the  effect  of  other 
causes,  than  as  the  real  causes  of  efiects,  such  as  we  now  witness 
and  deplore ;  for  in  the  moral,  social,  political,  and  commercial,  as 
well  as  in  the  mere  outTvard  physical  world,  there  is  a  certain  and 
necessary  connection  between  cause  and  effect,  reaching  from  end  to 
end,  through  the  whole  mysterious  web  of  human  occurrences.  So 
that,  in  the  history  of  man,  from  the  origin  of  the  world,  especially 
in  his  social  condition,  no  active  thought,  mat  is,  no  thought  which 
has  ever  been  brought  out  into  action  or  external  manifestation,  is  or 
can  be  isolated  or  severed  from  its  connection  with  that  intricate, 
universal,  albeit  mysterious,  chain  of  causes  and  of  consequences  to 
which  it  is,  as  it  ever  has  been,  the  occupation  of  mankind  to  add 
new  links  every  year  and  every  day. 

If  the  attempt,  then,  be  not  considered  too  bold,  I  shall  endeavor 
to  lay  before  you  a  brief  outline  of  the  primary,  original  causes  which, 
by  the  action  and  re-action  of  secondary  and  intermediate  agencies, 
have  produced  the  rapacity  of  landlords,  the  poverty  of  the  country, 
the  imputed  want  of  industry  among  its  people,  and  the  other  causes 
to  which  the  present  calamity  will  be  ascribed  by  British  statesmen. 
I  shall  designate  these  causes  by  three  titles :  first,  incompleteness 
of  conquest ;  second,  bad  government ;  third,  a  defective  or  vicious 
system  of  social  economy.  Allow  me,  first,  to  say  a  word  of  the 
country  itself. 

Ireland,  as  you  know,  is  not  larger  in  its  geographical  extent  than 
two-thirds  of  the  State  of  New  York.  An  island  on  the  western 
.  borders  of  Europe ;  its  bold  coast  is  indented  with  capacious  bays  and 
35 


546 


AKCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


safest  liarhoi’S.  For  its  size  it  lias  many  large  and  navigable  rivers  . 
and  it  is  said  that  no  part  of  the  island  is  more  than  fifty  miles  from 
tide-water.  Its  climate  is  salubrious,  although  humid  with  the  healthy 
vapors  of  the  Atlantic;  its  hills  (like  its  history)  are  canopied,  for 
the  most  part,  with  clouds ;  its  sunshine  is  more  rare,  but,  for  that 
very  reason,  if  for  no  other,  far  more  smiling  and  beautiful  than  ever 
beamed  from  Italian  skies.  Its  mountains  are  numerous  and  lofty ; 
its  green  valleys  fertile  as  the  plains  of  Egypt,  enriched  by  the  over¬ 
flowings  of  the  Nile.  There  is  no  country  on  the  globe  that  yields 
a  larger  average  of  the  substantial  things  that  God  has  pi’ovided  for 
Ihe  support  and  sustenance  of  human  life.  And  yet  there  it  is  that 
man  has  found  himself  for  generations  in  squalid  misery,  in  tattered 
garments,  often,  as  at  present,  haggard  and  emaciated  with  hunger ; 
his  social  state  a  contrast  and  an  eye-sore  in  the  midst  of  the  beauty 
and  riches  of  nature  that  smile  upon  him,  as  if  in  cruel  mockery  of 
his  unfortunate  and  exceptional  condition. 

The  invasion  of  Ireland  took  place  toward  the  close  of  the  Twelfth 
Century,  under  the  Anglo-Norman  king,  Henry  II.  An  Irish  chief¬ 
tain  had  been  expelled  from  his  country  by  the  virtuous  indignation 
which  a  flagrant  act  of  immorality  had  aroused  against  him,  in  the 
midst  of  his  countrymen  and  of  his  owm  subjects.  He  had  recourse  to 
the  British  monarch ;  the  king  merely  gave  him  letters-patent,  au¬ 
thorizing  such  adventurers  as  were  so  disposed  to  aid  him  in  recov¬ 
ering  his  estates.  Such  adventurers  w^ere  not  w\anting.  They  em¬ 
barked  and  landed  under  the  banner  of  invasion  upheld  by  the  crim¬ 
inal  hand  of  an  Irish  traitor.  They  succeeded  in  effecting  a  partial 
conquest.  The  native  population  were  driven  out  of  that  portion  of 
the  country  which  stretches  along  the  east  and  southeastern  coast, 
which  afterw^ards  became  knowm  in  history  as  the  English  Pale. 
This  portion  of  the  kin|fdoin,  less  than  one-third,  may  be  consid¬ 
ered  as  having  been  reauy  conquered  by  the  adventurers  ;  but  the 
rest  of  the  island  continued  as  before,  under  its  ancient  princes  and 
proprietors ;  some  of  them  having  simply  recognized  the  monarch 
of  England  as  their  superior  lord,  by  agreeing  to  pay  a  mere  nomi¬ 
nal  tribute.  Here  is  the  real  point  in  history,  at  wdiich  the  fountain 
of  Ireland’s  perennial  calamities  is  to  be  placed.  Many  a  tributary 
streamlet  of  bitterness  came  afterward  to  swell  the  volume  of  Its 
poisoned  -waters ;  but  this  is  the  fountain  which  supplied  and  gave 
its  direction  to  the  current.  The  king  displayed,  -svhen  he  visited 
Ireland,  an  authentic  or  a  forged  document  from  the  Pope,  author¬ 
izing  the  invasion.  There  is  no  evidence,  ho-wever,  except  what 
rested  on  the  royal  testimony,  that  such  a  document  had  been 
granted  ;  but,  whether  or  not,  it  had  no  more  effect  in  the  success 
of  the  invasion  than  if  it  had  been  so  much  blank  parchment.  The 
success  of  the  invasion  was  due,  on  the  one  side,  to  the  superior  skill 
of  the  adventurers,  guided,  if  not  led  on  by  an  Irish  chief ;  and,  on 
the  other  side,  was  owing  to  immemorial,  and  apparently  intermina¬ 
ble,  divisions  among  the  Irish  leaders  themselves.  They  prosecuted 
their  own  private  piques  against  each  other,  as  I  fear  they  -vtmuld  do 


LECTUKE  ON  THE  lEISH  FASnNE. 


547 


again,  no  matter  how  formidable  the  common  enemy  of  the  common 
weal  that  might  be  tlumdering  at  their  gates.  If  the  invaders  had 
prosecuted  the  contest  to  a  final  issue,  tiiat  issue  might  possibly 
have  united  them  for  once ;  but  the  English,  whether  from  weak¬ 
ness  or  from  policy,  were  satisfied  with  what  had  b()en  already 
achieved. 

The  conquest  was  thus  cut  short,  almost  at  the  opening  of  the 
book ;  and  the  calamities  that  have  resulted  to  Ireland,  from  that 
time  until  our  own  days,  are  but  so  many  supplements,  many  of 
them  bloody  ones,  to  complete  the  volume.  The  invaders  were 
pleased  to  consider  themselves  as  having  conquered  the  Irish  nation ; 
and  as  having  acquired  the  right  of  supreme  dominion  over  the  Irish 
soil.  The  king  divided  the  lands  of  the  whole  kins^dom  into  ten 
sections,  or  regions,  and  bestowed  them  upon  as  many  of  his  princi¬ 
pal  followers.  Having  flung  this  apple  of  discord  between  the  old 
and  new  race  of  the  Irish  people,  he  sailed  back  to  England — had 
the  emerald  gem  of  Erin’s  sovereignty  set  among  the  jewels  of  his 
crown — and  called  himself  Lord  of  Ireland.  The  consequence  of 
his  distribution  was,  from  this  time,  that  every  portion  of  the  Irish 
soil,  every  estate,  had  two  sets  of  owners  ;  the  one,  owner  by  jus¬ 
tice,  hereditaiy  title,  and  immemorial  possession  ;  the  other,  owner 
by  assumed  right  of  conquest,  and  the  sign  manual  of  Henry  H.  If 
Ilenry  had  conquered  the  country,  he  might  have  made  these  grants 
a  reality ;  but  as  it  was,  they  were  simply  as  royal  letters-patent, 
authorizing  the  iniquities  and  disorders  of  all  kinds  which  make  up 
the  history  of  the  relations  between  the  Irish  people  and  what  was 
called  the  English  Pale. 

The  invaders  regard  the  natives  as  illegal  occupiers  of  the  soil — 
as  barbarians,  who  stood  between  them  and  the  peaceful  possession 
of  their  property.  The  attempt  to  dispossess  the  native  population, 
however,  by  force,  would  have  been  a  dangerous  experiment ;  and 
it  makes  one  shudder  to  see  the  persevering  ingenuity  with  which 
the  aid  of  inhuman  legislation  w^  invoked,  with  which  laws  for  the 
protection  of  cruelty  and  treachery  of  every  description  were  enacted, 
to  accomplish  by  piecemeal  and  by  fraud  the  complete  conquest 
■which  they  were  too  feeble  or  too  politic  to  refer,  once  for  all,  to  the 
more  humane  decision  of  the  battle-field. 

If  we  look  at  the  legislation  of  the  Pale,  for  the  entire  period  of 
four  hundred  years,  we  shall  find  the  tone  of  its  enactments  to  be 
always  in  harmony  with  this  purpose — laws  against  intermarriages 
with  the  natives ;  laws  against  their  language ;  laws  against  their 
manners  and  customs  ;  and  even  laws  making  it  criminal  for  a  liege¬ 
man  of  England  to  allow  an  Irish  horse  to  graze  on  his  pasture.  In 
the  minds  of  the  invaders,  in  the  acts  of  Parliament,  in  royal  procla¬ 
mations,  during  all  those  centuries  down  to  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  the  natives  are  designated  as  aliens  jand  Irish  enemies. 
N  o  part  of  the  soil  of  their  country  was  recognized  as  theirs.  They 
were  denied  all  share  in  the  benefits  of  English  laws  ;  the  iniquities 
of  the  royal  grant,  supported  by  the  iniquities  of  legislation,  made 


648 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


it  lawful  for  the  invaders  to  kill  or  rob  “  the  mere  Irish,”  as  the  acci¬ 
dents  of  opportunity,  or  the  caprice  of  expediency  might  direct.  If 
any  of  the  natives  appealed  to  the  law  for  redress,  it  was  enough  for 
the  defendant  to  prove  that  the  would-be  jdaintifi  was  a  mere  Irish¬ 
man,  and  did  not  belong  to  any  of  the  five  families  to  whom  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  the  British  laws  had  been,  by  special  favor,  extended. 
This  plea  arrested  all  further  proceedings  in  the  court.  Frequently, 
during  this  long  interval,  had  the  natives  petitioned  and  implored  to 
be  admitted  into  the  Pale,  and  under  the  protection  of  the  laws ; 
but  as  often  was  their  petition  rejected.  On  the  other  hand,  their 
own  sovereignty  W'as  paralyzed  and  rendered  impotent  by  the  inva¬ 
sion,  and  the  disorders  which  resulted  from  its  incompleteness. 
They  were  broken  up  and  divided,  so  that  they  were  deprived  of  all 
opportunity  for  social  or  physical  improvement,  by  any  legislative 
organization  of  their  own.  This  sketch  conveys  a  faint  idea  of  the 
condition  of  Ireland  during  nearly  four  hundred  years  after  the  inva¬ 
sion.  The  English  Pale,  meantime,  instead  of  enlarging  its  boun¬ 
daries,  had  often  been  obliged  to  curtail  them ;  and  as  late  as  the 
reign  of  Henry  VIII.  it  was  restricted  to  only  four  counties,  out  of 
the  w'hole  kingdom.  Enough  has  been  said,  I  think,  to  illustrate  the 
principle  with  wdiich  I  set  out,  that  to  assume  the  fiction  of  a  con¬ 
quest  ;  to  accomplish  it  by  halves  ;  to  leave  it  incomplete  ;  to  repair 
its  deficiency — wdiich  must  he  repaired  by  other  means,  wdiich  must 
be  fraudulent — is  the  most  cruel  policy,  as  wmll  as  the  most  injurious 
to  both,  that  a  strong  nation  can  employ  in  the  subjugation  of  a 
w'eak  one.  If  it  must  be  done  at  all,  it  will  be  mercy  to  do  it  thor¬ 
oughly  ;  so  that  the  sword  shall  have  determined,  to  the  conviction 
of  all  parties,  the  reality  of  the  new  relations  that  have  sprung  up 
by  its  decision  betiveen  the  conquerors  and  the  conquered.  The  bad 
policy  of  the  incomplete  conquest  of  Ireland  had  to  be  repaired,  or 
rather  completed,  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  by  commencing  the  work 
anew ;  for  it  wms  only  under  Queen  Elizabeth,  wdio  wms  no  half-way 
ruler,  but  who — wdiatever  else  she  may  have  been — was,  I  had 
almost  said,  a  king  every  inch  of  her,  that  Ireland  wms  finally  crushed, 
if  not  conquered. 

It  w'ould  have  been,  however,  too  humiliating  to  British  sov¬ 
ereignty  to  supply  the  original  defect,  under  the  original  name  of 
conquest.  It  v  as,  therefore,  now  to  be  accomplished  under  the  title 
and  form  of  “reducing  insubc';dinate  and  rebellious  subjects;” 
although  it  required  the  help  of  a  strong  legal  fiction  to  regard  as 
rebels  those  w'ho  had  hitherto  been  repulsed  from  the  protection  of 
the  law^  But  even  this  reduction  could  not  be  accomplished,  it 
seems,  without  cruelties,  for  wdiich  the  annals  of  mankind,  in  the 
most  barbarous  ages  of  the  world,  furnish  no  parallel.  It  is  a  sin¬ 
gular  coincidence,  and  full  of  admonitions,  that,  in  this  second  con¬ 
quest,  British  statesmen  recommended — and  military  otficers  em¬ 
ployed — and  lords  deputies  approved  of  famine  as  their  most  effect¬ 
ual  instrument  and  ally  in  the  work  of  subjugation.  The  occupation 
of  the  troops  from  year  to  year  was  to  prevent  the  cultivation  of  the 


LECTUKE  ON  THE  IRISH  FAMINE. 


549 


land,  to  destroy  tlie  growing  crops  already  planted — foi’  “  famine,” 
says  the  Englisli  historian  who  records  the  fxct,  “  was  judged  the 
speediest  and  most  eftectnal  way  of  reducing  the  Irish.”  The  con¬ 
sequences  were,  that  whole  provinces  were  left  desolate,  without  an 
inhabitant,  except  in  the  towns  and  villages  ;  that  those  whose  mis¬ 
fortune  permitted  them  to  escape  the  sword,  sometimes  offered 
themselves,'  their  wives  and  children,  to  be  slain  by  the  army,  rather 
than  wait  for  that  slow,  horrid  death  of  famine  and  starvation,  which 
had  been  reserved  for  them  ;  for  we  can  all  conceive  that,  compared 
with  the  deliberate  use  of  this  instrument  of  w'ar,  against  a  rur.al  and 
scattered  agricultural  population,  the  Indian’s  tomahawk  becomes  a 
symbol  of  humanity.  Meantime,  the  old  chieftains  of  clans,  the 
owners  of  the  soil,  the  leaders  of  the  peojde,  the  “  great  rebels,”  as 
they  were  called,  were  becoming  fewer  and  fewer.  Some  perished 
on  the  battlefield  :  they  were  the  most  fortunate.  Others  gave 
themselves  up,  on  the  word  of  honor  and  protection,  and  were  then 
impeached  and  executed.  Some  were  slain  at  the  festive  board  of 
the  invading  commander,  whose  invitation  to  the  banquet  they  had 
accepted,  thinking  foolishly  that  the  laws  of  truce  and  hospitality 
made  all  their  rights  not  only  secure,  but  even  sacred,  under  the  tent 
of  a  true  soldier;  and  thus,  in  few  years,  the  Irish  aliens,  the  Irish 
enemies,  or  the  Irish  rebels,  if  you  will,  were  indeed  reduced ;  and 
now  there  was  a  prospect  of  the  invaders  being  permitted  to  enter 
into  peaceable  possession  of  those  estates  which,  by  right  of  con¬ 
quest,  as  they  understood  it^  had  been  theirs  from  the  first  invasion. 

Elizabeth  proposed  to  colonize  the  whole  province  of  Ulster  with 
English  settlers,  but  she  did  not  live  to  accomplish  her  project. 

The  plantation  of  Ulster  remained  to  be  carried  into  effect  by  her 
successor,  James  I.  He  secured  to  himself  a  new  and  better  title; 
he  confiscated  to  the  crown  six  entire  counties  of  Ulster,  in  one  day ; 
and  ])arcelled  them  out,  chiefly  among  his  Scotch,  rather  than  his 
Unglish,  friends — the  native,  the  hereditary  population  having  been, 
of  course,  sent  adrift.  The  king  and  his  ministers  congratulated 
themselves,  and  compared  this  act  of  his  Majesty  to  the  conduct  of 
a  wise  and  thrifty  husbandman,  who  transjilants  his  trees  according 
to  the  soil  in  which  they  will  grow  best.  After  James  came  Charles 
I.  and  the  civil  wars  in  England.  When  other  resources  failed  the 
monarch,  the  fragments  of  property,  real  and  personal,  that  still  re¬ 
mained  to  the  Irish  people,  were  strained  into  the  supjfiy  of  his 
empty  coffers.  He  obtained  from  them,  by  royal  promise,  £120,000 
sterling,  for  what  was  called  “  Graces  ;”  the  principal  of  which  was, 
what  every  American  inherits  by  birthright — liberty  of  conscience. 
He  pocketed  the  money,  but  I  am  sorry  to  say  he  refused  the 
“  Graces.”  His  deputy  in  Ireland  projected  and  carried  out  a  sys¬ 
tem  for  the  confiscation,  in  detail,  of  private  estates,  under  a  “  Com¬ 
mission  ”  for  inquiry  bito  defective  titles.  The  jury  that  refused  to 
find  a  verdict  for  the  crown,  under  this  system,  was  punished  and 
ruined;  and  as  to  the  judges,  the  Lord  Deputy  writes  to  his  royal 
vnaster  that  he  had  got  them  to  attend  to  this  business,  as  if  it  Avere 


550 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


their  own  personal  affair,  by  promising  four  shillings  in  the  pound 
to  the  judge  Avho  presided  at  the  trial,  out  of  the  first  year’s  income 
from  all  confiscated  estates.  Under  the  Commonwealth,  Ireland  is 
the  scene  of  new  exterminations — new  confiscations — new  foreign 
settlers,  amidst  the  wrecks  and  ruins  of  the  nativ'e  population.  On 
the  llestoration,  the  loyalists  of  England  and  Scotland  were  re¬ 
instated  in  their  rights  ;  but  in  Ireland  the  loyalists  were  abandoned 
by  the  crown,  and  the  followers  of  Cromwell  confirmed  in  their  pos¬ 
sessions.  Nay,  James  II.  came  in  on  the  title  of  a  Cromwellian,  and 
ai)])ropriated  to  himself,  in  one  instance,  no  less  than  from  70,000’  to 
100,000  acres  that  had  been  confiscated  by  Cromwell  to  punish  the 
fidel’ity  of  its  rightful  owners  for  adhering  to  the  cause  of  that  mis¬ 
erable  James’s  unfortunate  father.  Finally,  that  country,  which  had 
been  conquered  so  often,  submitted  at  last  to  William  III.,  successor 
to  James  on  the  English  throne — submitted,  but  still  not  to  the 
sword  of  a  conqueror,  but  to  the  faith  of  a  hing^  stamped  on  a  writ¬ 
ten  instrument,  mutually  agreed  upon  by  him  and  the  last  represent¬ 
ative  of  unconquered  Ireland,  called  the  “  Treaty  of  Limerick.”  But 
every  article  of  it,  autograph,  royal  seal  and  all  was  repudiated  the 
moment  it  was  safe  to  do  so. 

The  enactment  of  the  entire  penal  code,  soon  afterwards,  is  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  entire  and  deliberate  violation  of  all  the  articles  of  the 
Treaty  of  Limerick.  By  that  code,  the  inhabitants  of  Ireland  were 
again  divided'  into  two  classes ;  the  one  consisting  of  those  whose 
conscience  would  allow  them  to  take  the  State  oath,  on  the  subject 
of  religion  :  to  them  high  privileges  were  secured.  But  penalties 
were  enacted  against  those  who  could  not,  or  would  not,  swear  that 
oath.  The  great  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Irish  people  refused 
the  test ;  and  the  penal  law  came  quickly  to  punish  them,  even  in 
their  family  relations  and  domestic  circle.  It  invested  any  child, 
who  might  conform  to  the  test  prescribed,  with  the  rights  ot  prop¬ 
erty  enjoyed  by  his  father.  It  invested  the  wife  with  rignts  of 
property  over  the  husband.  If  any  of  those  w'ho  had  refused  to 
swear  purchased  an  estate  for  any  amount  of  money,  any  of  the 
others  who  had  taken  the  oath,  could  dispossess  him,  without  paying 
one  shilling  for  such  estate.  If  any  of  the  former  class  owned  a 
horse  worth  fifty  or  one  hundred  pounds,  any  of  the  latter  class  had 
a  right,  by  law,  to  tender  five  pounds,  and  tell  him  to  dismount. 
If  any  of  the  former  class,  by  his  skill  and  industry  in  agriculture 
raised  the  value  of  his  land  so  as  to  yield  a  profit  equal  to  one-third 
of  the  rent,  any  of  the  latter  could  enter  on  the  profits  of  his  labor, 
and  take  possession  of  his  land.  These  laws  continued  for  between 
eighty  and  ninety  j’ears  down  to  the  period  of  American  Indepen¬ 
dence.  And  in  this  enactment  we  see  what  a  penalty  was  inflicted 
on  the  agricultural  industry  of  the  Irish — what  a  premium  was  held 
out  to  encourage  that  indolence  which  British  statesmen  now  impu¬ 
dently  complain  of. 

The  same  system  has  been  continued  to  the  present  day :  as  if 
some  cruel  law  of  destmy  had  determined  that  the  Irish  people 


LECTURE  ON  THE  IRISH  FAMINE. 


551 


Bhoixld  be  kept  at  the  starving  point  througli  all  times ;  since  the 
landlord,  even  now,  claims  the  right,  and  often  uses  it,  of  punishing 
the  industry  of  his  tenant,  by  increasing  the  rent  in  proportion  to 
the  im])rovement  the  tenant  makes  on  liis  holding.  If,  then,  it  be 
true  tliat  the  Irish  are  indolent,  which  I  deny,  the  cause  could  be 
sufficiently  explained  by  the  penalties  which  a  bad  Government 
has  inflicted  ujion  them,  in  their  own  countiy,  for  the  crime  of  being 
industrious.  Then,  if  it  be  said,  as  a  reproach,  that  the  Irish  are 
ignorant,  let  it  be  remembered  that  this  same  code  of  penal  laws 
closed  up  the  schools  of  popular  education ;  that  the  schoolmaster 
was  banished  for  the  crime  of  teaching,  and  if  he  returned  he  was 
liable  to  be  treated  as  a  felon.  If  ignorance  of  the  jxeople,  then,  be 
the  cause  of  the  famine,  enough  has  been  said  to  point  out  the  cause 
of  the  ignorance  itself. 

The  melancholy  training  of  so  long  a  period  of  oppression  served 
to  bring  out,  in  the  shades  of  adversity,  virtues  which  perhaps 
would  not  have  bloomed  or  borne  fruit  in  the  summer  atmosphere 
of  national  prospei’ity.  Filial  reverence,  domestic  affections,  always 
congenial  to  the  Irish  heart,  had  here  ample  op])ortunity  of  proving 
themselves,  and  were  never  found  wanting.  The  law  put  it  in  the 
power  of  any  son,  by  declaring  himself  a  Protestant,  to  enter  imme¬ 
diately  upon  the  rights  of  property  enjoyed  by  his  father  and  his 
family ;  but  no  son  of  Irish  parents  was  ever  known  to  have  availed 
himself  of  the  law.  As  a  matter  of  expediency,  it  was  customary 
for  the  Catholic  proprietor,  for  the  protection  of  his  property,  to  vest 
the  legal  title  in  some  Protestant  neighbor ;  and,  again,  it  is  consol¬ 
ing  to  know  that,  notwithstanding  the  temptations  presented  by 
these  iniquitous  laws,  there  is  no  instance  of  that  private  confdence 
having  been  violated.  These  laws  originated  at  the  close  of  the 
Seventeenth  Century,  and  continued  in  force  until  two  years  after 
a  British  general,  Burgoyne,  turned  the  point  of  his  sword  to  his 
own  breast,  and  presented  the  hilt  to  the  hand  of  his  conqueror, 
after  the  battle  of  Saratoga.  Then  came  the  only  brief,  bright  pe¬ 
riod  of  Irish  history — the  period  of  her  volunteers,  of  her  statesmen 
and  orators — her  illustrious  Grattan  rousing  the  ]xatriotism  of  his 
country,  and  emancipating  her  long  enslaved  Parliament ;  the  pe¬ 
riod  of  her  Bushe,  her  Flood,  her  Curran,  and  the  other  great  names 
that  have  made  Irish  eloquence  as  immortal  as  the  Anglo-Saxon 
tongue.  But  the  sun  of  her  brief  day  sooti  declined  and  set,  shrouded 
in  clouds  of  blood,  for  it  closed  by  the  banishment  or  martyrdom  of 
her  patriots — her  noble-hearted  Emmets  and  Fitzgeralds.  It  was 
brought  to  an  end  by  a  new  policy,  conducted  in  the  old  spirit.  A 
rebellion  had  been  deliberately  fomented  by  the  agents  of  a  foreign 
Government,  until  it  reached  the  desired  point  of  precocious  ripe¬ 
ness,  and  then  it  was  crushed  with  promptness  and  with  cruelty. 
Martial  law  foi-  the  people,  gold  for  the  senate — a  bayonet  for  the 
patriot  who  loved  Ireland,  and  a  bribe  for  the  traitor  who  did  not, 
led  to  the  act  called  the  Union,  in  which  the  charter  of  Irish  nation¬ 
ality  was  destroyed,  but  I  trust  not  forever. 


552 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES, 


The  rest  you  are  all  acquainted  with ;  it  has  occurred  in  our  day, 
and  within  our  memory.  It  will  be  manifest,  from  what  has  been 
said,  that  the  causes  which  have  jirevented  the  prosperity  of  Ireland, 
the  development  of  her  material  resources,  the  cultivation  of  her 
mind,  have  existed  from  an  early  date ;  and,  under  one  form  or  an¬ 
other,  have  been  in  perpetual  activity.  She  has  hardly  been  permit¬ 
ted  to  enjoy  repose  sufficient  even  for  a  fair  experiment  of  improve¬ 
ment.  liuring  the  first  four  hundred  years  after  the  invasion,  her 
people  were  outlawed  because  tliey  were  mere  Irisli.  Afterwards, 
when  the  English  laws  were  extended  to  her,  in  1610,  her  people 
were  again  outlawed  or  Avorse,  not  noAV  because  they  were  Irish,  but 
because  they  weie  Catholics.  By  adhering  to  their  old  religion, 
their  rulers  supposed  them  to  have  shipwrecked  their  hopes  of  hap¬ 
piness  in  anotlier  woi'ld,  which  would  have  been  misfortune  enough, 
without  inflicting  punishments  for  tlieir  mistake  so  Avell  calculated 
to  destroy  their  prospeiity  here.  At  the  commencement  of  these 
changes,  the  law  required  them  to  attend  the  Church  and  service  of 
the  State  religion :  if  they  attended,  they  did  not  understand  a  syl¬ 
lable  of  that  service,  which  was  conducted  in  the  English  language  ; 
if  they  did  not  attend,  iheir  property  w^as  seized  by  fines  for  their 
non-attendance,  £20  a  Sunday.  Then,  either  by  grants  or  confisca¬ 
tions,  under  Charles  I.,  to  whose  cause  they  Avere  loyal,  their  prop¬ 
erty  Avas  still  diminished.  Under  Cromwell,  they  Avere  punished 
and  plundered  both  as  idolators,  and  because  they  had  been  faithful 
to  their  king.  Under  the  Restoraiion,  all  preceding  iniquities  as  re¬ 
garded  the  oAvnership  of  property  Avere  confirmed.  Under  William 
III.  and  his  successors,  the  penal  laws  Avere  applied  in  the  same  Avay, 
not  to  the  body  politic  at  large,  but  with  an  ingenuity 'of  detail,  to 
every  joint,  and  sinew,  and  muscle,  as  if  the  object  Avere  to  paralyze 
all  effort  at  national  amelioration.  Just  in  proportion  as  the  strug¬ 
gle  of  these  colonies  for  independence  was  successful,  in  that  propor¬ 
tion  did  the  policy  of  the  British  GoA'ernment  relax  the  pressure  of 
this  Aveighty  bondage  of  the  Irish  people. 

We  sometimes  hear  comparisons  instituted  between  the  prosperity, 
industry,  and  moral,  or,  at  least,  intellectual  condition  of  the  Scotch, 
and  the  poverty  of  all  kinds  of  the  Irish ;  and  the  conclusion  is  gen¬ 
erally  adverse  to  the  latter,  either  on  the  score  of  national  character 
or  of  relii^ion.  Some  even  assert  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  in 
reality  the  cause  of  the  poA^erty  and  degradation  of  Ireland.  I  have 
said  enough  to  sIioav  that  it  has  been  at  least  an  occasion  ;  but  1  am 
Avilling  to  go  farther,  and  admit  that  in  one  sense  it  has  been  a  cause 
also  ;  for  I  iiave  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  if  the  Irish,  by  any 
chance,  had  been  Presbyterians,  they  Avould  have,  from  an  early  day, 
obtained  protection  for  their  natural  rights,  or  they  Avould  have 
driven  their  opjjressors  into  the  sea.  The  Scotch  escaped  nearly  all 
the  calamities  I  have  described  ;  they  Avere  never  conquered  ;  their 
soil  was  never  taken  from  beneath  their  feet ;  they  mei’ged  them¬ 
selves  spontaneously,  at  their  oAvn  time  and  on  their  OAvn  terms,  into 
the  State  of  England.  They  kejjt,  also,  the  property  of  their  old 


LECTUKE  ON  THE  IRISH  FAMINE. 


553 


religion  for  their  own  social  and  religious  use.  Already,  before  the 
change,  parish  schools  were  established  in  Scotland  ;  after  the  change 
these  were  multiplied,  improved  and  endowed,  out  of  the  old  church 
property.  But  in  Ireland,  everything  was  the  reverse  ;  church  build¬ 
ings,  monasteries,  glebes,  tithes,  from  year  to  year,  all  went  by  the 
board  ;  all  were  subtracted  from  the  aggregate  of  the  n.ational  wealth. 
And  even  in  modern  times,  we  read  of  incumbents  appointed  to  eccle¬ 
siastical  livings,  entering  on  their  cure,  or  rather  sinecure,  penniless, 
and  after  a  few  years,  by  the  prob.ate  of  their  own  wills,  leaving  to 
their  foreign  heirs,  in  some  instances,  as  much  as  three  and  four  hun¬ 
dred  thousand  pounds  sterling. 

I  have  ventured  to  suggest  a  defective  or  vicious  system  of  social 
and  political  economy  as  the  other  great  cause  of  Ireland’s  pecu¬ 
liarly  depressed  condition.  By  social  economy  I  mean  that  eftbrt 
of  society,  organized  into  a  sovereign  State,  to  accomplish  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  all  its  members.  The  welfare  of  its  members  is  the  end  of  its 
existence — Salirs  populi  suprema  lex.  It  would  be  a  reproach,  to  say 
that  Christianity  conceived  a  meaner  or  lower  idea  of  its  oblig.ation. 
This  idea,  it  may  not,  perhaps,  be  possible  to  realize  fully  in  practice 
under  any  system  ;  but  it  should  never  be  lost  sight  of.  The  sys¬ 
tem  which  now  i)revails  has  lost  sight  of  it,  to  a  great  extent.  It  is' 
called  the  free  system — the  system  of  competition — the  system  of 
making  the  wants  of  mankind  a  regulator  for  their  supplies. 

It  had  its  origin  in  the  transition  of  society  from  that  state  of 
mitigated  slavery  which  was  called  feudalism  and  serfiige,  as  they 
prevailed  in  England.  As  regards  the  mere  physical  position,  food, 
clothing,  lodging,  of  the  entire  people  of  England,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  old  system  provided  better  for  it  tlian  the  present  one. 
The  old  Bai’ons  never  allowed  their  serfs  to  die  of  a  hunger  which 
they  were  not  willing  to  share.  As  the  latter  emerged  from  serf¬ 
dom,  and  before  they  were  able  to  take  their  ranks  with  advant.age, 
in  a  more  honorable  sphere  of  free  labor,  the  Church  property,  with 
its  gre.at  means,  constituted  a  providence  of  protection  for  this 
class.  When  the  Church  property  -was  distributed  among  the 
nobles  of  England  this  resource  failed,  and  then  it  was  that  Poor 
Laws  were  enacted,  and  taxes  began  to  be  levied  by  the  State, 
from  the  poor,  for  the  support  of  the  pauper.  Until  then,  the  ag¬ 
gregate  wealth,  of  the  English  people,  taking  them  altogether  as 
members  of  one  State,  w.as  greater  than  it  ever  has  been  since,  or 
60  far  as  we  can  see,  is  likely  ever  to  be  again.  There  were  not 
indeed,  those  colossal  individual  fortunes  which  now  exist,  but 
neither  were  there,  on  the  other  hand,  those  abysses  of  physical 
and  moral  destitution,  Avhich  are  now  yawning  on  every  side  for 
the  new  victims,  whom  the  pressure  of  the  present  system  is  push¬ 
ing,  e\  ery  day,  nearer  and  nearer  to  their  fatal  brink.  By  this  sys¬ 
tem  England  has,  I  .admit,  become  the  richest  country  on  the  globe  ; 
but  riches  are  by  no  means  synonymous  with  prosperity,  when  we 
epoak  of  the  social  condition  of  a  whole  people.  And  this  system, 
though  T  may  woi-k  ivell,  even  for  national  jirosperity,  in  certain 


554 


AECIIB.  BIIOP  IIFGHES. 


given  times  and  circumstances,  yet  carries  within  it,  in  the  palmiest 
days  of  its  success,  a  principle  of  disease,  which  acts  first  on  the 
lower  extremities  of  the  social  body,  and  with  the  lapse  of  time 
will  make  itself  felt  at  the  very  heart  and  seat  of  life.  It  is  an  appall¬ 
ing  reflection  that  out  of  the  active  and  productive  industry  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  provision  must  be  made  for  the  support  of 
between  four  and  five  millions  of  paupers.  This  number  will  be 
increased  by  every  depressing  crisis  in  commerce  and  in  trade ;  by 
every  blight  of  sterility  which  Providence  permits  to  fail  on  the 
fields  of  the  husbandman  ;  and  the  experiment  of  Sir  Bobert  Peel, 
in  imposing  on  the  wealthy  an  income  tax,  may  be  regaided  as  a 
premonitory  warning  that,  although  the  time  may  not  yeij  have  ar¬ 
rived,  it  is  approaching,  and  perhaps,  at  no  very  remote  distance, 
when  the  mountains  of  individual  wealth  in  England  shall  be  made 
comparatively  low,  and  the  valleys  of  pauperism  will  be  partially 
filled  up.  I  am  aware  that  in  speaking  on  this  subject  I  shall  go,  as 
it  were,  in  opposition  to  the  almost  universal  sentiment  of  this  age, 
but  for  the  expression  of  my  opinion  I  will  offer  you  this  apology, 
that  provided  you  do  me  the  honor  to  hear,  I  will  not  ask  you  to 
coincide  in  so  much  as  one  of  the  conclusions  at  which  my  mind 
•has  arrived  in  regard  to  it. 

I  know  that  no  living  man  is  accountable  for  the  system  of  which 
I  am  about  to.  complain ;  it  is  older  than  we  are,  it  is  the  invisible 
but  all-pervading  divinity  of  the  Fiscal,  the  unseen  ruler  of  the  tem¬ 
poral  affairs  of  this  world.  Kings  and  Emperors  are  but  its  prime 
ministers,  premiers  and  parliaments  but  its  servants  in  livery ; 
money  is  the  symbol  of  its  worship,  we  are  all  its  slaves,  without 
any  power  to  emancipate  ourselves  ;  the  dead  and  dying  in  Ireland 
are  its  victims. 

It  will  not  be  disputed,  I  presume,  that  the  present  system  of 
social  and  political  economy  resolves  itself,  when  analyzed,  into  a 
primary  element  of  pure  selfishness.  The  principle  that  acts,  the 
main  spring  that  sets  all  its  vast  and  intricate  machinery  in  motion  is 
self-interest ;  whether  that  interest  assume  a  national  form  in  the 
commercial  rivalship  of  States,  or  an  individual  form  in  the  pursuit, 
the  industry,  and  enterprise  of  private  persons.  The  conqueror, 
indeed,  carries  off  great  spoils  from  the  contest ;  but  his  enjoyment 
of  them  would  be  disturbed  if  he  could  only  hear  the  cries  of  the 
wounded  and  the  dying  who  have  fallen  in  the  battle. 

The  true  system,  in  my  opinion,  would  regard  the  general  inter¬ 
est  first,  as  wholly  paramount,  and  have  faith  enough  to  believe 
that  individual  interest  would,  in  the  long  run,  be  best  promoted  by 
allowing  it  all  possible  scope  for  enterprise  and  activity  within  the 
general  limits.  Then  individual  welfare  would  be  the  result,  and  not 
the  antecedent,  as  it  is  when  the  order  is  reversed.  The  assumption 
of  our  systent  is,  that  the  healthy  antagonisms  of  this  self-interest, 
which,  as  applied  to  the  working  classes,  its  advocates  sometimes 
design.ate  pompously,  “  the  sturdy  self  reliance  of  an  operative,” 
will  result  finally  in  the  general  good.  I  am  willing  to ‘admit,  that 


LECTUEE  ON  THE  lEISII  FAMINE. 


655 


in  the  fallen  condition  of  hnman  nature,  self-interest  is  the  most 
powerful  principle  of  our  being,  giving  impulse  and  activity  to  all 
our  individual  undertakings,  and  in  that  way,  to  the  general  opera¬ 
tions  of  life.  But  unfortunately  this  system  leaves  us  at  liberty  to 
forget  the  interest  of  others.  The  fault  which  I  impute  to  it,  how¬ 
ever,  is  that  it  values  wealth  too  much,  and  man  too  little ;  that  it 
does  not  take  a  large  comprehensive  view  of  self-interest ;  that  it  does 
not  embrace  within  its  protecting  sphere  the  whole  entire  people, 
weak  and  strong,  rich  and  poor,  and  see,  as  its  first  and  primary 
care,  that  no  member  of  the  social  body,  no  man  shall  be  allowed 
to  sutler  or  perish  from  want,  except  by  the  agency  of  his  own 
crime.  The  fault  that  I  find  witli  it  is,  that  in  countries  of  limited 
territorial  surface  and  dense  iiopulation,  by  a  necessary  process  it 
works  down  a  part  of  the  community,  struggling  with  all  their 
might  to  keep  up,  into  a  condition  not  merely  of  poverty,  but  of 
destitution;  and  then  treats  that  poverty,  which  itself  had  created, 
as  a  guilt  and  an  infamy.  The  fault  that  I  find  with  it  is,  that 
whilst  it  allows,  and  properly  so,  competition  to  be  the  life  of  trade, 
it  allows  it  also  to  be  oftentimes,  the  death  of  the  trader.  The 
premier  of  England  is  reported  to  have  said  not  long  since,  “  that 
nothing  prevented  him  from  employing  government  vessels  to  car¬ 
ry  bread  to  a  starving  people,  except  his  unAvillingness  to  disturb 
the  current  of  trade.”  Never  was  oracle  of  a  hidden  and  a  heart¬ 
less  deity  uttered  more  faithfully,  or  more  in  accordance  with  the 
worship  of  its  votaries,  than  in  the  language  here  imputed  to  the 
British  minister,  who  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  the  living  high 
priest  of  political  economy.  To  put  public  vessels  in  competition 
with  merchantmen,  in  the  low  business  of  mere  trade,  would  indeed 
have  been  wrong  and  unworthy  of  the  great  ruler  ;  but  if  the 
profits  of  trade  had  been  curtailed  in  the  proportion  of  three  or 
four  per  cent,  per  annum  during  this  crisis  of  the  famine,  it  would 
have  saved  many  lives,  and  yet  not  have  afflicted  a  wound  or  scar  on 
the  healtli  of  commerce.  The  fault  that  I  find  with  the  system, 
then,  is,  that  it  not  only  allows  but  sanctions  and  approves  of  a  prin¬ 
ciple,  which  operates  differently  in  two  provinces  of  the  same  State, 
divide<l  only  by  a  channel  of  the  sea.  It  multiplies  deposits  of  idle 
money  in  the  banks,  on  one  side  of  that  channel,  and  multiplies  dead 
arnl  coffinless  bodies  in  the  cabins,  and  along  the  highways,  on  the 
other.  The  fault  that  I  find  with  it  is,  that  it  guarantees  the  right 
of  the  rich  man  to  enter  on  the  fields  cultivated  by  the  poor  man 
whom  he  calls  his  tenant,  and  carry  away  the  harvest  of  his  labour, 
and  this,  whilst  it  imposes  on  him  no  duty  to  leave  behind  at  least 
food  enough  to  keep  that  poor  man  alive,  until  the  earth  shall  again 
yield  its  fruits.  The  fault  that  I  find  with  it  is,  that  it  provides 
wholesome  food,  comfortable  raiment  and  lodgings  for  the  rogues, 
and  thieves,  and  murderers  of  the  dominions,  whilst  it  leaves  the 
honest,  industrious,  virtuous  peasant  to  stagger  at  his  labour  through 
inanition,  and  fall  to  rise  no  more  !  Oh !  if  this  system  be  all  in  all, 
why  did  he  not,  in  his  forlorn  state,  entitle  himself  to  its  advan- 


556 


AECnBISIIOP  HUGHES. 


tages  ?  Why  did  he  not  steal,  or  commit  murder  ? — for  then  the 
protection  of  onr  modern  Christian  governments  would  be  ex¬ 
tended  to  him,  and  he  would  not  be  allowed  to  die  of  want.  I  may 
be  told  that  I  avail  myself  unfairly  of  an  extraordinary  calamity  to 
prove  the  defects  of  our  present  system ;  I  may  bts  told  that  the 
famine  in  Ireland  is  a  mysterious  visitation  of  God’s  providence,  but  I 
do  not  admit  any  such  plea.  I  fear  there  is  blasphemy  in  charging 
on  the  Almighty  what  is  the  result  of  man’s  own  doings.  Famine 
in  Ireland  is,  and  has  been  for  many  years,  like  the  cholera  in  India, 
indigenous.  As  long  as  it  is  confined  to  a  comparatively  few  cases 
in  the  obscure  and  sequestered  parts  of  the  country,  it  may  be  said 
that  the  public  administrators  of  social  and  political  economy  are 
excusable,  inasmuch  as  it  had  not  come  under  their  notice  ;  but,  in 
the  present  instance,  it  has  attracted  the  attention  of  the  whole 
world.  And  yet  they  call  its  God’s  famine!  No!  no!  God’s 
famine  is  known  by  the  general  scarcity — there  has  been  no  general 
scarcity  of  food  in  Ireland  either  the  present  or  the  past  year  ex¬ 
cept  in  one  species  of  vegetable.  The  soil  has  produced  its  usual 
tribute  for  the  support  of  those  by  whom  it  has  been  cultivated ; 
but  political  economy  found  the  Irish  people  too  poor  to  pay  for  the 
harvest  of  their  own  labor,  and  has  exported  it  to  a  better  mar¬ 
ket,  leaving  them  to  die  of  famine,  or  to  live  on  alms  ;  and  this  same 
political  economy  authorises  the  pi’ovision  merchant,  even  amidst 
the  desolation,  to  keep  his  doors  locked,  and  his  sacks  of  corn  tied 
up  within,  waiting  for  a  better  price,  whilst  he  himself  is,  perhaps, 
at  his  desk,  describing  the  wretchedness  of  the  2:>eople  and  the  ex¬ 
tent  of  the  misery ;  setting  forth  for  the  eye  of  the  first  lord  of  the 
treasury  with  what  exemplary  patience  the  peasantry  bear  their 
sufterings,  Avith  what  admirable  resignation  they  fall  down  through 
weakness  at  the  threshold  of  his  warehouse,  Avithout  having  even 
attempted  to  burst  a  door,  or  break  a  windoAv. 

Such  conduct  is  j^raised  everywhere,  even  her  Majesty,  in  a  royal 
speech,  did  not  disdain  to  ap2)rove  of  it ;  and  it  is,  in  truth,  deserv¬ 
ing  of  admiration,  for  the  sacredness  of  the  rights  of  proi)erty 
must  be  maintained  at  all  sacrifices,  unless  Ave  Avould  have  society 
to  dissolve  itself  into  its  original  elements  ;  still  the  rights  of  life 
are  dearer  and  higher  than  those  of  jAroperty;  and  in  a  general 
famine  like  the  present,  there  is  no  law  of  Heaven,  nor  of  nature 
that  forbids  a  starving  man  to  seize  on  bread  Avherever  he  can 
find  it,  even  though  it  should  be  the  loaves  of  ^u’oposition  on  the 
altar  of  God’s  tem])le.  But,  I  Avould  say  to  those  who  maintain  the 
sacred  and  inA'iolable  rights  of  jAroperty,  if  they  Avould  haA’e  the 
claim  res|)ected,  to  be  careful  also  and  scrupulous  in  recognising 
the  rights  of  humanity.  In  a  crisis  like  that  which  is  noAV  }).assing 
the  Irish  may  submit  to  die  rather  than  violate  the  rights  of 
{)roperty;  but  in  such  a  calamity,  should  it  ever  happen,  which  God 
forbid,  the  Scotch  Avill  not  submit;  the  English  Avill  not  submit;  the 
French  Avill  not  submit;  and,  depend  ujaou  it,  the  Americans  Avill 
not  submit.  Let  us  be  careful,  then,  not  to  blas])hcme  Providence 


LECTURE  OJf  THE  IRISH  FAMINE. 


557 


by  calling  this  God’s  fiimine.  Society,  that  great  civil  corporation 
which  we  call  the  State,  is  bound  so  long  as  it  has  the  power  to  do 
so,  to  guard  the  lives  of  its  members  against  being  sacrificed  by 
famine  from  within,  as  much  as  against  their  being  slaughtered  by 
the  enemy  from  without.  But  the  vice  which  is  inherent  in  our 
system  of  social  and  political  economy  is  so  subtile  tliat  it  eludes  all 
pursuit,  that  you  cannot  find;  or  trace  it  to  any  responsible  source. 
The  man,  indeed,  over  whose  dead  body  the  coroner  holds  the  in¬ 
quest,  has  been  murdered,  but  no  one  has  killed  him.  There  is  no 
external  wound,  there  is  no  symptom  of  internal  disease.  Society 
guarded  him  against  all  outward  violence ;  it  merely  encircled  him 
around  in  order  to  keep  up  what  is  termed  the  regular  current 
of  trade,  and  then  political  economy,  with  an  invisible  hand,  ap¬ 
plied  the  air-pump  to  the  narrow  limits  within  wliich  he  was  con¬ 
fined,  and  exhausted  the  atmosphere  of  his  physical  life.  Who  did 
it  ?  No  one  did  it,  and  yet  it  has  been  done. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  causes  of  Ireland’s  present  suflieriugs  have 
been  multitudinous,  remote,  and  I  might  almost  say,  perpetual. 
Nearly  the  whole  land  of  the  country  is  in  the  ownership  of  per¬ 
sons  having  no  sympathy  with  its  population  except  that  of  self- 
interest — her  people  are  broken  down  in  their  physical  condition 
by  the  previous  calamities  to  which  I  have  directed  your  atten¬ 
tion.  Since  her  union  with  England,  commerce  followed  capital,  or 
found  it  in  that  country,  and  forsook  the  sister  island.  Nothing  re¬ 
mained  but  the  produce  of  the  soil.  That  produce  was  sent  to 
England  to  find  a  better  market,  for  the  rent  must  be  paid  ;  but 
neither  the  produce  nor  the  rent  ever  returned.  It  has  been  es¬ 
timated  that  the  average  export  of  capital  from  this  source  has 
been  equal  to  some  twenty-five  or  perhaps  thirty  millions  of  dollars 
<#  annually,  for  the  last  seven  and  forty  years  ;  and  it  is  at  the  close 
of  the  last  period,  by  the  failure  of  the  potato,  that  Ireland,  with¬ 
out  trade,  without  manufactures,  without  any  returns  for  her  agri¬ 
cultural  exports,  sinks  beneath  the  last  feather,  not  that  the  feather 
was  so  weighty,  but  that  the  burthen  previously  imposed  was  far 
above  her  strength  to  bear.  If  it  be  true  that  the  darkest  hour  of 
the  night  is  that  which  immediately  precedes  the  dawn,  may  we  not 
indulge  the  hope  that  there  are  better  days  yet  in  store  for  this 
unfortunate  people.  They  have  been  crushed  and  ruined  in  all  the 
primary  elements  of  their  material  happiness,  but  yet  they  have 
never  forfeited  any  of  the  higher  attributes  of  a  noble,  generous  na¬ 
ture.  They  might,  perhaps,  have  shared  with  the  other  portions  of 
the  empire  in  the  physical  comforts  and  improvements  of  modern 
civilization  if  they  had  renounced  their  religion,  at  the  period  Vvhen 
the  others  saw  fit  to  change  theirs  ;  but  after  the  present  famine 
shall  have  been  forgotten,  the  high  testimony  which  the  Irish 
people  bore  to  the  holiness  of  conviction  within  their  sonl,  at  at' 
risks,  and  through  all  sacrifices,  will  be  considered  an  honor  to  hu 
manity  itself.  They  believed,  whether  rightly  or  not  is  not  now 
the  question,  but  right  or  wrong,  they  believed  that  to  profess  a 


558 


ARCnBISnOP  HUGHES. 


religion  which  had  no  hold  on  their  conA'iction,  would  offend  God, 
and  involve  them  in  the  double  guilt  of  falsehood  and  hypocracy — • 
that  it  would  degrade  them  in  their  oAvn  minds — that  it  would  en¬ 
title  them  to  the  contempt  of  the  Avorld — and  sooner  than  do 
this,  they  submitted  to  everything  besides.  There  was  this  one 
sovereignty  which  they  neA'er  relinquished — the  sovereignty  of  con¬ 
science  and  the  privilege  of  self-respect.  Their  soul  has  never  been 
conquei’ed ;  and  if  it  was  said  in  Pagan  times  that  the  noblest  S})ectacle 
whicli  this  earth  could  present  to  the  eye  of  the  immortal  gods,  Avas 
that  of  a  virtuous  man  braA’ely  struggling  with  adversity,  what 
might  not  be  said  of  a  nation  of  such  men  who  have  so  struggled 
through  entire  centuries  ?  Neither  can  it  be  said  that  their  spirit  is 
yet  broken.  Intellect,  sentiment,  fancy,  Avit,  eloquence,  music,  and 
poetry,  are,  I  might  say,  natuival  and  hereditary  attributes  of  the  Irish 
mind  and  the  Irish  heart ;  and  if  no  adAmrsity  of  .ages  was  sufficient  to 
crush  these  capacities  and  powers,  Avho  will  say  th.at  such  a  people 
have  not,  under  happier  circumstances,  Avithin  themselves  a  princi¬ 
ple  of  self-regener.ation  and  improA^ement,  Avhich  Avill  secure  to  them 
at  least  an  ordinary  portion  of  the  happiness  of  Avhich  they  haA'e 
been  so  long  deprived  ?  The  charity  of  other  countries,  and  among 
them  pre-eminently  of  England  herself,  the  sympathy  of  distant 
and  free  States,  on  this  occasion,  AA'ill  themselves  have  an  effect. 
They  will  show  Ireland  tliat  she  is  cared  for ;  they  Avill  inspire  her 
with  the  pleasing  hope  that  she  is  not  to  be  ahvays  the  doAvn-trod- 
den  and  neglected  province,  the  outcast  nation  among  the  nations  of 
the  earth. 


CHRISTIANITY,  THE  ONLY  SOURCE  OF  MORAL, 
SOCIAL,  AND  POLITICAL  REGENERATION. 

A  SERilON  PREACHED  IN  THE  HALL  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  ON  SUNDAY,  DECEJIBER 
12,  1847,  BY  THE  RT.  REV.  JOHN  HUGHES,  D.  D.,  BISHOP  OF  NEW 
YORK. 


From  the  Washington  Coi-respondence  of  the  IT.  Y.  TrThxmc. 

Washington,  Dec.  16,  1847. 

You  have  already  seen  several  notices  of  the  eloquent  sermon  preached  by  Bishop 
Hu,^  hes  at  the  Capitol  on  Sunday  last.  I  trust  some  of  the  publishers  may  issue  an 
1  utliorized  version  of  it  in  pamphlet  form,  for  preservation.  Should  any  one  under- 


SKEMON  BEFOEE  CONGEESS. 


559 


take  the  task,  the  following  correspondence,  which  led  to  its  delivery,  and  which  hiS 
not  yet  been  pxiblished,  will  be  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  pamphlet : 

Washington,  Dec.  6,  1 847. 

To  Eight  Reverend  Bishop  Hughes: 

Sir — ITie  undersigned,  Members  of  Congi’ess,  respectfully  invite  you  to  preach 
in  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Sunday  moiming  next  (12th  inst.), 
at  11  o’clock,  unless  some  other  hour  of  the  day  may  be  mot  e  agreeable  to  you. 

We  are,  Right  Rev.  Sir,  your  obedient  servants, 


OF  THE  SENATE  : 


John  Davis,  Massachusetts. 

John  M.  CLAVTorf,  Delaware. 
William  Ui’ham,  Vermont. 

J.  J.  Cuittendah,  Kentucky. 

S.  A.  Dooglas'I,  Illinois. 

Chester  Ashley,  Arkansas. 

John  P.  IIai.e,  New  Hampshire. 
Samuel  S.  PriiLPS,  Vermont. 
Simon  Cameuon,  Pennsylvania. 
Albert  C.  Gueene,  Rhode  Island. 


D.  S.  Dickinson,  New  York. 

D.  R.  Aciieson,  Mis.souri. 

E.  A.  Hannegan,  Indiana. 

J.  C.  Calhoun,  South  Carolina. 
Leavis  Cass,  Michigan. 

TnoMAs  CoRAviN.  Ohio. 

Willie  P.  Manocm,  North  Carolina. 
J.  A.  Pearce,  Maryland. 

Thomas  H.  Benton,  Missouri. 
Sidney  Breeze,  Illinois. 


OP  THE  HOUSE  OF 

John  Qdinct  Adams,  Massachusetts. 
Joseph  Ghinnell,  Massachusetts. 
iVASHiNOTON  Hunt,  New  York. 

J.  H.  JoHN.soN,  New  Hampshire, 
tv.  Dur.ii,  New  York, 
f .  Butler  King,  Georgia. 

■J.  Kellogg,  New  York. 

J.  G.  Hampton,  New  Jersey. 

Hugh  White,  New  York. 

R..  Toombs,  Georgia. 

Caleb  B.  Smith,  Indiana. 

W.  Ballard  Preston,  Virginia. 
Samuel  F.  Vinton.  Ohio. 

John  Pendleton,  Virginia. 

John  A.  McClernand,  Illinois. 

J.  R.  Giddings,  Ohio. 

E.  C.  Cabi 


BEPESENTATITES  t 

Willard  P.  Hall,  Missouri. 
John  Wentworth,  Illinois. 

D.  WiLMOT,  Pennsylvania. 

J.  H.  Harmanson,  Bouisiana. 
Wm.  T.  Haskell,  Tennessee. 

W.  R.  W.  Cobb,  Alabama. 

James  A.  Black,  South  Carolina. 
James  Dixon,  Connecticut. 

Linn  Boyd,  Kentucky. 

John  M.  Botts,  Virginia. 

D.  B.  St.  John,  New  York. 

C.  J.  Ingersoll,  Pennsylvania. 
James  J.  Faran,  Ohio. 

E.  Sherrill,  New  York. 

F.  A.  Tallmadge,  New  York. 

I.  E.  Holmes,  South  Carolina. 

L,  Florida. 


Washihgtox,  9th  Dec.,  1847. 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  place  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the 
service  of  Bishop  Hughes,  in  conformity  with  the  above  invitation. 

Robekt  C.  Winthrop,  Speaker  II.  R. 

This  list  would  have  been  much  longer,  but  there  was  not  time  to  present  it  to 
the  members  generally.  It  embracess,  however,  the  leading  men  of  both  parties  in 
both  Houses  of  Congress.  It  was  handed  to  the  Bishop  on  Thursday  evening.  The 
following  is  his  reply  : 

To  Honorable  John  Quincy  Adams  and  other  Hon.  Members  of  both  Houses  of 
Congress : 

Gentlemen — I  have  just  been  favored  with  your  note  of  yesterday,  inviting  me 
to  preach  in  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Sunday  msrning  next. 
1  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  decline  a  compliance  with  a  wish  so  kindly  expwssed  on 
your  part,  and  so  flattering  to  me.  I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  gentlemen. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

^  John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  Hew  YorTc. 


560 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


SEEMON. 


The  portion  of  tlie  Holy  Scriptures  which  I  am  about  to  read,  is 
found  in  the  20th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  beginning  with  the  20th 
verse  : 

“  Tlien  came  to  liiin  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  ■with  her  sons,  adoring 
and  asking  something  of  him. 

“  Who  said  to  her:  What  wilt  thou?  She  said  to  him  :  Say  that  these  my  two 
sons  may  sit,  the  one  on  Thy  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  Thy  left,  in  Thy  king¬ 
dom. 

“  And  Jesus  answering,  said:  You  know  not  what  you  ask.  Can  you  drink  the 
chalice  that  I  shall  drink  ?  They  say  to  him  :  We  can. 

“  He  saith  to  them :  My  chalice  indeed  you  shall  drink,  but  to  sit  on  My  right  or 
My  left,  hand,  is  not  Mine  to  give  you,  but  to  them  for  -whom  it  is  prepared  by 
My  Father. 

“And  the  ton  hearing  it,  were  moved  with  indignation  against  the  two  brethren. 

“But  Jesus  called  them  to  him,  and  said:  You  know  that  the  princes  of  the 
Gentiles  lord  it  over  them;  and  they  that  are  the  greater  exercise  power- upon 
them, 

“  It  shall  not  be  so  among  you,  but  whosoever  will  be  the  greater  among  you, 
let  him  be  your  minister. 

“  And  he  that  will  be  first  among  you  shall  be  your  servant. 

“  Even  as  the  Sou  of  Man  is  not  come  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister, 
and  to  give  His  life  a  redemption  for  many.” 

It  is  observed,  Christian  brethren,  as  something  remarkable,  that 
in  all  the  records  which  the  inspired  writers  have  left  us,  of  the  life 
and  the  teachings  of  the  Son  of  God  upon  earth,  there  appears  to 
be  scarcely  one  direct  allusion  to  the  outward  condition  of  that  fal¬ 
len  race,  which  He  came  to  raise  and  to  redeem.  Questions  of 
government — questions  of  social  right  would  seem  to  have  been 
more  urgent  then  than  they  are  now  ;  and  yet  ■\ve  cannot  find  one 
solitary  pi'inciple  or  precept,  having  the  amelioration  of  these  as 
the  direct  object  of  our  Saviour.  He  did  not  appear  surrounded 
with  the  pomp  and  the  pretension  of  a  -reformer.  He  did  not,  in 
propounding  those  doctrines  which  involve  the  hope  of  the  world, 
appeal  to  the  sanction  and  to  the  support  of  public  opinion.  He 
did  not  even  sustain  his  maxims  by  any  lengthened  train  of  reason¬ 
ing,  although  He  sometimes  condescended  to  illustrate  His  mean¬ 
ing,  by  reference  to  parables  and  usages  familiar  to  the  people ; 
and  yet  I  will  not  say  too  much,  when  I  add,  that  all  the  ameliora¬ 
tion  which  has  taken  place  in  the  history  of  man,  and  all  the  ele¬ 
ments  by  which  it  may  still  be  promoted,  are  contained  in  the  di¬ 
vine  lessons  which  our  blessed  Saviour  inculcated  in  reference  to 
another,  a  brighter  and  a  better  Avorld  than  this.  He  took  occasion 
to  coftvey  one  of  these  lessons  from  that  manifestation  of  man’s  n:i- 
ture,  which  came  before  Him  in  the  incident  recorded  by  the  evan¬ 
gelist,  in  the  passage  which  I  have  just  read.  The  poor  mother, 
with  the  atYection  and  the  pardonable  ambition  natural  to  the  ma- 


SERMON  BEFORE  CONGRESS. 


561 


ternal  heart,  wanted  to  secnre  in  time  a  place  of  distinction  for  her 
two  sons,  who  had  already  attached  themselves  to  His  teachings, 
and  M’ere  Kumbered  amongst  His  disciplejs  ;  and  when  their  appli¬ 
cation  was  jnade  knoAvn,  the  ten,  by  a  manifestation  of  another  at¬ 
tribute  of  fallen  human  nature,  exhibited  symptoms  of  their  indig¬ 
nation  and  jealousy.  They  were  filled,  says  the  text,  with  indig¬ 
nation  at  the  two.  As  yet,  the  true  light  of  Christian  faith  had 
not  taken  effect  in  their  breasts — as  yet,  their  spirits  .were  in  the 
condition  of  our  first  parent,  when  God  fashioned  him  out  of  the 
mould  of  the  earth,  with  all  his  features  and  all  his  corporal  facul¬ 
ties  ready,  but  whilst,  as  yet,  the  breath  of  life  had  not  been 
breathed  into  him  in  the  character  of  a  living  soul.  So  it  was  with 
their  spiritual  nature  ;  since,  notwithstanding  the  divine  teachings, 
tliey  could  not  raise  their  minds  above  the  low  distinctions  which 
constituted  the  object  of  ambition  on  the  -one  side,  and  the  object 
of  jealousy  and  indignation  on  the  other.  From  this  our  divine 
Saviour  takes  occasion  to  speak,  and  in  His  gentle  rebuke,  and 
comprehensive  instruction.  He  touched  upon  that  principle  which 
has  ever  been,  and  ever  will  be,  Avhen  indulged,  the  enemy  of  so¬ 
cial  happiness,  and  the  enemy  of  equal  just  rights  in  the  world.  He 
referred  to  the  nations  of  the  earth,  at  that  time,  without  rule  or 
restraint,  or  limitation,  of  supreme  power.  He  said:  You  know 
how  they  lord  it  over  their  subjects ;  but  as  for  you,  (addressing 
not  the  future  lords  of  the  temporal  condition  of  man,  but  address¬ 
ing  those  who  were  to  be  the  ministers  and  the  founders  of  that 
other  and  better  kingdom,  which  He  came  to  establish  upon  earth) 
-^whosoever  will  be  the  greater  among  you,  let  him  be  your  min¬ 
ister.  Thus  He  impressed  upon  his  followers  the  necessity  of  im¬ 
posing  upon  themselves  the  wholesome'  restraints  of  self-denial  and 
humility. 

Beloved  brethren,  it  was  at  quite  a  late  period  of  the  week  that 
I  was  honored  with  the  invitation,  which  I  prize  so  highly,  to  ad¬ 
dress  you  from  this  place.  I  had  already  consented  to  speak  in 
one  of  our  churches,  where  my  presence  would  be  more  natural 
and  more  expected  ;  and  for  that  place  I  had  prepared,  by  reflec¬ 
tion,  some  remarks  on  a  subject  which  I  would  not  deem  suitable, 
on  the  present  occasion ;  for  I  should  feel  that  I  corresponded  but 
])Oorly  to  a  compliment  so  much  to  be  valued,  if  I  could  obtrude 
upon  you  any  reflections  or  arguments  upon  those  doctrinal  sub¬ 
jects,  which  to  too  great  an  extent,  have  divided  the  Christian 
world. 

Allow  me  then  to  make  some  reflections  upon  Christianity  and 
its  Author,  as  containing  and  setting  forth  the  germ  of  moral,  social, 
and  political  regeneration  in  this  fallen  world  of  ours.  For,  wdiilst  I 
admit  it  as  true,  that  our  divine  Saviour  seemed  to  regard  those 
mighty  things  which  occupy  the  whole  soul  of  men,  even  of  wise 
and  benevolent  men,  as  if  He  would  do  them  sufficient  justice  by 
leaving,  in  the  language  of  the  inspired  text,  “  the  de^d  to  bury 
the  dead,”  yet  I  contend  that  they  were  by  no  meand  unprovid,.c 
36 


502 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


for,  in  ITis  teachins^s.  The  object  of  His  mission  upon  earth  was  of 
a  higher  and  holier  character  than  the  mere  settlement  of  human 
government.  Man  had  incurred  the  eiimity  of  his  Maker,  by  diso¬ 
bedience.  Man  had  forfeited  the  inheritance  for  which  God  had 
originally  created  him;  and  Jesus  Christ,  in  fulfilment  of  the  first 
object  of  Ilis  mission,  came  as  peacemaker  between  the  offended 
Creator  and  Supreme  Lord,  and  Ilis  rebellious  and  disobedient 
creature  anc\  subject.  But  yet,  whilst,  as  it  is  remarked  by  a  writer 
on  laws,  the  direct  object  of  Christ  appears  to  have  had  reference 
to  another  life,  it  is  singular  that  its  indirect  consequences  seem 
to  constitute  the  only  true  ground  of  hope  and  of  happiness,  even 
in  the  affairs  of  this  world.  And  it  is  in  that  point  of  view  that  I 
would  invite  your  attention  to  two  or  three  reflections  ;  the  first  of 
which  will  be,  the  condition  of  human  nature  and  especially  its  con¬ 
dition  at  the  period  when  the  Son  of  God  appeared  as  man — not 
only  to  ransom  our  race  by  the  infinite  merits  of  his  atonement  and 
redemption,  but  also  to  re-establish  and  open  anew  the  communica¬ 
tion  between  the  immortal  soul  and  God,  who  is  its  eternal  Author. 
This  was  the  direct  object  of  His  mission  :  and  we  are  not  to  doubt 
that  all  those  things  which  appear  to  us  so  mysterious,  so  inexpli¬ 
cable,  so  incomprehensible — that,  sometimes  we  seem  to  derive 
rather  the  elements  of  scepticism  from  them — that  all  those  things, 
in  the  wise  providence  of  God,  are  susceptible  of  explanation,  and 
fall  into  harmony  with  the  general  designs  of  His  providence.  The 
second  reflection  will  be  the  principles  by  which  that  amelioration, 
wherever  it  has  taken  place,  has  been  achieved — and  the  third,  the 
application  of  those  principles,  so  for  as  they  have  been  applied  to 
the  mere  transitory,  social  and  political  condition  of  mankind.  If  I 
speak  first,  then,  of  the  condition  of  human  nature,  I  speak  from 
conclusions  to  which  every  mind  must  have  come  that  is  familiar 
with  the  achievements  of  man,  unaided  by  the  light  of  divine  reve¬ 
lation,  and  unwarmed  in  his  heart  by  the  love  which  Jesus  Christ 
brought  from  heaven,  and  breathed,  as  the  spirit  of  life,  into  that 
society  which  was  founded  on  the  basis  of  His  doctrine.  We  find 
man  accomplishing,  in  Greece  and  Home,  what  constitute,  at  this 
day,  objects  of  our  astonishment  and  admiration  ;  and  yet,  both  in 
Greece  and  Rome,  with  all  the  superiority  of  his  intellect,  we  dis¬ 
cover  him  either  bowing  down  to  gods,  the  creatures  of  this  earth, 
and  sometimes  of  his  own  hand,  or  worshipping  abstract  deities, 
whose  history  was  made  up  of  vices,  the  very  imitation  of  which 
would  have  corrupted  a  pure  nation,  instead  of  their  being  models 
to  elevate,  by  imitation  of  the  virtues  that  Deity  ought  to  exhibit. 
And  how  was  all  this  ?  It  involved  a  contradiction — and  that  con¬ 
tradiction  still  subsists  in  our  nature.  It  is  the  contradiction  by 
which  human  nature  is  susceptible,  under  certain  circumstances,  of 
such  heroic  and  noble  virtues,  and  by  which,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  subject  to  such  degrading  and  brutifying  vices.  It  is  the  aspirar- 
tion,  unbounded,  of  the  soul,  in  which,  even  in  this  life,  if  you 
watch  its  course,  not  all  the  wealth  that  earth  possesses,  can  reach 


SERMON  BEFORE  CONGRESS. 


563 


the  measure  of  man’s  avarice  ;  not  all  the  honors,  can  reach  that  of 
his  ambition.  The  orio;in  of  this  enigma,  revelation  has  made 
known.  But  even  if  revelation  had  been  silent,  that  which  the 
ancient  philosophy  of  Greece  surmised  with  good  reason,  becomes 
manifest,  that  this  humanity,  this  compound  of  contradictions,  never 
could  have  come  originally  from  the  hand  of  an  infinitely  wise  and 
perfect  God,  in  this  condition.  There  must  have  been  a  catastro¬ 
phe,  and  revelation  comes  to  teach  us  what  that  was  ;  and  in  order 
to  understand  the  history  of  this  nature,  and  the  object  of  the  in¬ 
carnation  of  the  Son  of  God  taking  it  upon  Him  for  our  redemp¬ 
tion,  we  have  one  key  : — that  key  is  man’s  original  revolt  against . 
God’s  government.  It  is  asked  sometimes,  by  unreflecting  minds, 
who  are  puzzled  by  this  strange  exhibition  of  our  nature,  why  was 
it  that  God  left  such  awful  consequences  dependent  upon  the  crea¬ 
ture,  whom  He  had  just  formed  !  The  answer  is  such  as  we  may 
give,  according  to  the  limited  measure  of  our  knowledge,  for  when 
we  speak  of  (|^d,  and  of  God’s  dealings  with  the  Universe  and  its 
inhabitants,  we  must  speak  within  the  limits  of  our  capacity — we 
haA  e  no  measure  to  comprehend  God.  Our  capacity  is  limited,  and 
according  to  that  small  measure  only  are  we  permitted  to  speak  ; 
and  whilst  we  admit  still  the  existence  of  the  mystery,  we  may  pre¬ 
sent  a  reasonable  solution  of  the  difficulty  here  suggested.  It  is 
this :  God  is  alone  the  Supreme  Governor — the  alone  eternal,  inde¬ 
pendent,  infinite  Being.  Conceding  these  attributes,  we  must  ad¬ 
mit  that,  consistently  with  them,  God  could  not  create  any  being, 
and  especially  a  rational  being,  endowed  with  the  attributes  of 
man’s  spiritual  nature,  aiid  leave  him  independent^  as  if  he  were  to 
be  another  God. 

There  is  no  work  of  God  that  is  independent  of  its  supreme  author, 
or  of  His  rule,  or  of  His  government ;  and  accordingly,  though  the 
seasons  may  have  been  altered,  and  the  earth  deformed  in  conse- 
queiice  of  man’s  disobedience,  we  yet  trace,  as  we  may,  with  great 
gratification,  the  obedience  of  all  things  else  to  the  government  of 
their  glorious  Creator.  If  you  turn  your  eyes  upon  the  heavens, 
you  perceive  with  what  regularity  the  starry  host  move  on  their 
apj)ointed  way.  Day  by  day  and  year  by  year — for  ever  and  ever 
■ — each  twinkling  lamp  of  heaven  is  in  its  place — all  in  the  beautiful 
order  which  God  appointed  for  their  movements.  The  sun  fails  not 
to  rise  to  enlighten  and  w'arm  the  earth  at  the  appointed  hour ;  and 
not  from  want  of  light,  but  from  its  excess,  when  he  sheds  his  efful¬ 
gence  on  the  earth,  these  stars  seem  to  hide  away.  If  you  turn 
your  eyes  to  the  earth,  the  seasons — except  in  the  mysterious  order 
in  which  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  they  were  changed,  when 
man  become  a  rebel — the  seasons  themselves  come  at  the  period 
appointed.  The  earth  buds  forth  its  myriads  of  flowers.  The  warm 
summer  ripens  all  that  the  fertile  soil  is  destined  to  yield  for  the 
sustenruice  of  man.  Autumn  furnishes  the  season  for  gathering  its 
bounties  ;  and  repose  is  again  furnished  by  the  winter.  If  you  look 
upon  the  ocean,  you  see  the  same  unvai’ying  obedience  to  the  groat 


564 


A-ECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Creator,  In  all  material  things  we  see  this  harmony  of  passive  sub¬ 
jection  to  the  will  of  Him  who  called  them  into  being.  Man  is  the 
only  exception  to  the  universal  order  of  obedience.  And  why  is 
man  the  exception  ?  Originally,  we  may  say,  that  man,  by  the  very 
dignity  of  his  nature,  could  not  yield  obedience  to  God  in  tlie  way 
in  which  it  is  manifested  by  irrational  material  things.  Earth  and 
shy  present  a  book  in  which  God  has  traced,  with  His  own  hands, 
the  evidence  of  His  2t>ower  and  the  glory  of  the  Creator.  But  that 
book  does  not  comprehend  itself.  Man  is  necessary  to  read  and 
interpret  its  contents.  To  him — created  free,  but  not  independent 
. — God,  even  in  the  condition  of  his  innocence,  made  known  the  law 
by  which  he  was  to  shai)e  his  conduct,  and  admonished  him  of  the 
penalty  of  the  violation  of  that  law.  If  it  be  said  that  God  might 
have  created  man  so  as  to  leave  him  without  the  power  of  rebellion, 
then,  what  would  have  been  the  consequence?  That  man,  with  an 
immortal  soul,  with  reason  which  can  Jook  abroad  upon  the  works 
of  God,  and  an  imagination  which  can  gather  to  its  *ivn  chambers 
the  majestic  firmament  itself,  and  theu  measure  the  distances,  and 
comprehend  the  movements  of  the  hosis  of  heaven,  with  almost  god¬ 
like  faculty,  would  have  been  identified  with  gross  material  things. 
He  would  have  been  subjected  with  them  to  a  law  of  necessity,  such 
as  that  by  which  God  governs  all  that  is  material  in  the  world.  If 
man  had  been  thus  created,  how  could  he  have  rendered  unto  God 
homage  and  worship  worthy  of  either  ?  The  obedience  rendered  by 
such  a  being  would  have  been  only  like  that  of  the  tree  which  bends 
to  the  blast  which  agitates  its  branches.  Man  would  then  have  been 
redxiced  to  the  condition  of  the  puppet  strung  ufjon  the  wire,  and 
not  even  a  mortal  occupant  of  a  throne  would  feel  flattered  by  the 
mock  homage  of  a  machine  so  arranged  that  it  could  not  avoid  bow¬ 
ing  in  reverence  to  his  greatness.  God  has,  therefore,  made  man 
free,  because  it  was  requisite  for  the  dignity  of  the  nature  bestowed 
upon  him,  that  he  should  render  a  voluntary  homage  to  the  Creator. 
Being  free,  he  necessarily  had  the  power  of  disobedience,  and  there 
is  the  key  which  explains  the  other  mysterj'^ — itself  indeed  myste¬ 
rious.  There  is  that  Avhich  accounts  for  the  introduction  of  evil  into 
the  world.  Thus  disobedience — a  reversal  of  God’s  order  by  man’s 
ov.m  poAver,  an  eAul  having  its  origin  at  the  cradle  of  our  race,  and 
receiving  accuinulations  of  guilt  and  -fiimiliarity  Avith  depravity  in 
the  progress  of  time — accounts  for  the  condition  of  mankind.  God 
declared  that  there  should  be  jxenalties,  as  marked  in  the  book  of 
revelation — in  the  book  of  Genesis — Avere  so  far  of  the  temporal 
order.  Man  should  die — he  shouhl  have  to  toil — and  here  Ave  have 
the  origin  of  sickness,  and  of  disappointment,  and  of  deception,  and 
of  all  the  various  instrumentalities  by  Avhich  oftentimes  sorrow 
traces  our  patlnvay  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave.  These  are  the 
consequences  of  man’s  disobedience.  And  then  God  seemed  to  haAm 
withdraAvn,  as  it  Avere^  from  the  rebel — not  altogether — for  even  out 
first  parent  beheld,  through  the  tears  of  his  repentance,  one  bright 
but  as  yet  feeble  ray  of  hope  on  the  horizon  of  the  distant  future ; 


SERMON  BI^rOEE  CONGRESS. 


565 


and  liis  poster/ty  in  the  order  of  the  patriarchs,  were  by  no  means 
forsaken  of  God.  lie  communicated  to  them,  from  time  to  time,  the 
purposes  of  Ills  mercy ;  and  he  made  them,  in  the  first  instance,  to 
be  the  long-lived  patriarchs — the  rulers  of  their  family  and  of  their 
posterity — so  that  the  same  individual  was  a  teacher  of  religion,  a 
high  priest,  and  a  king.  But  as  their  posterity  increased,  it  became 
necessary  to  form  the  scattered  families  into  an  aggregate,  called  a 
nation.  And  then  God  did  not  leave  them,  for  they  were  His  chosen 
people.  lie  did  not  leave  them  to  form,  at  their  own  caprice,  laws 
for  their  social  and  political  government.  He  communicated  their 
laws.  '  He  established  their  religion.  He  sent,  at  intervals,  prophets 
to  instruct  them,  and  everything  bore  with  concentrated  gaze  upon 
a  point  of  time  future,  and  upon  a  person  on  whose  appearance 
the  ransom  and  redemption  of  this  fiillen  race  were  to  be  accom¬ 
plished.  As  for  the  Gentiles,  as  the  text  declares  them  to  have  cor¬ 
rupted  their  way,  they  went  forth,  under  the  law  of  our  nature,  by 
which  man  is  still  a  social  being,  destined,  by  an  unconquerable  pro¬ 
pensity  of  his  heart,  to  associate  with  his  fellow-creatures.  Conse¬ 
quently,  social  forms  of  existence  were  necessary ;  but  they  were 
fornred  in  the  absence  of  divine  light,  and  though  reason,  so  called, 
was  as  powerful  then  as  now — although  what  we  term  principles  of 
natural  justice  should  have  been  familiar — yet  if  you  look  abroad 
upon  the  fitce  of  the  earth  at  the  period  at  which  our  Saviour  ad 
monished  His  apostles,  you  will  find  nowhere  this  pretended  excel 
lence  of  reason — nowhere  that  just  or  humane  government,  which 
the  very  promptings  of  the  natural  heart  should  seem  to  have  dic¬ 
tated  ;  but  everywhere  the  multitude  crushed  to  the  earth  under 
the  iron-shod  hoof  of  irresponsible,  absolute,  despotiapow’er. 

If,  then,  as  in  our  day,  men  sometimes  reason  against  religion, 
and  if  they  reason  with  singular  acuteness,  I  will  tell  them  that  their 
reasoning,  and  the  reasoning  of  those  whom  they  vindicate  or  follow, 
is  not  a  specimen  of  man’s  intellect  before  it  was  taught  and  illu¬ 
mined  by  the  light  which  God  shed  upon  the  world  through  the 
religion  of  His  Divine  Son.  If  you  wmnt  to  know  what  human 
reason  is  capable  of  in  government  and  religion,  or  in  any  of  those 
things  upon  which  reason  founds  the  highest  exercise  of  its  powers, 
go  to  the  j)eriod  when  human  reason  alone  swayed  the  temporal  des¬ 
tinies  of  mankind,  and  you  will  find  man  in  Egypt  bowing  down  to 
the  ox,  and  worshipping  the  vegetables  of  the  field,  as  regards  re¬ 
ligion  :  you  will  find  him,  as  regards  government,  not  questioning 
— for  he  did  not  dare  to  question— his  reason  never  aspired  to  the 
right  of  questioning — the  arbitrary  power  which  his  rulers  exercised 
with  so  relentless  a  tyranny.  Even  Rome  itself,  with  all  its  pre¬ 
tended  freedom,  had  degenerated  into  a  military  despotism.  It  is 
in  ameliorating  this  condition  of  things  that  the  admonition  of  our 
Divine  Saviour  began  to  have  its  operation  and  efficacy.  He  tells 
his  apostles,  for  the  correction  of  all  this,  that  those  who  would  be 
free  must  begin  by  imposing  restraints  upon  themselves.  He  insin¬ 
uates  that  there  is  in  the  heart  of  man  a  natural  selfishness ;  that  that 


566 


AFCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


selfishness  originates  in  the  corrupted  sources  of  iiis  passions,  and 
that.  He,  at  least  in  Ilis  own  kingdom,  would  have  His  followers  to 
resti'ain  selfishness  ;  and,  so  far  from  insisting  upon  pre-eminence, 
lie  declares  that  those  Avho  would  best  serve  Him  must  become 
first  the  servants  of  their  fellow-beiners.  It  was  in  such  a  condition 
of  the  world  that  our  Divine  Saviour  spoke  ;  and  though,  as  I  have 
said.  He  did  not  seem  to  interfere  with  the  civil  Governments  of 
this  earth — whether  they  should  be  monarchies  or  republics,  des¬ 
potic  or  aristocratic — He  treated  not  of  tliese  questions  at  all — yet 
we  find  in  His  teachings  the  germ  of  all  that  is  great  and  glorious 
in  the  social  and  political  condition  of  mankind.  I  do  not  say  that 
tlieir  condition  is,  even  now,  what  it  ought  to  be ;  inasmuch  as  the 
Redeemer  came,  not  to  alter  human  nature,  but  to  impart  new 
powers  for  restraining  its  corruption  by  self-control ;  He  came  to 
infuse  a  new  principle  ;  He  came  to  breathe  a  new  spirit  into  those 
who  would  be  guided  by  His  light;  and  it  is  from  this  source  that 
we  may  derive  improvement  in  the  social  and  political  condition  of 
the  world. 

It  was  necessary,  beloved  brethren,  that  man  should  be  taught 
by  authority.  He  had  not  discovered  his  duties  by  any  appeal  to 
his  own  breast.  Until  the  appearance  of  Christ,  the  selfishness  of 
his  nature  was  the  ruling  law  of  his  action.  The  oj^portunities  that 
presented  themselves  for  the  gratification  of  that  selfishness  were 
always  greedily  seized  on  ;  and  as  for  restraint,  he  knew  none.  If 
he  questioned  his  own  heart,  it  imposed  no  law  of  self-denial.  On 
the  contrary,  it  prompted  him  to  the  indulgence  of  selfishness — to 
the  gratification  of  his  evil  passions.  There  was,  tlierefore,  no  re¬ 
straint,  and  it  was  necessary  that  the  authority  of  God  should  lay 
down  those  rules  for  the  government  of  human  conduct  which 
Christ  conveyed  in  his  lessons  to  his  disciples.  These  laws,  whilst 
calculated  to  improve  and  exalt  the  individual  man,  were  also 
adapted  to  the  improvement  and  elevation  of  his  race  in  their  social 
chai’acter.  Such  was  the  religion  which  the  Divine  Saviour  came 
to  teach.  He  appeared  without  pomp.  His  birth  was  humble  and 
obscure.  His  lot  was  equally  so.  Ilis  death  was  an  iniquity  in 
those  by  whom  it  was  perpetrated.  Nevertheless,  He  was  the  prom¬ 
ised  One  of  the  ancient  prophets,  upon  whom  the  eyes  of  all  anti¬ 
quity,  even  from  the  darkness  of  paganism,  with  some  faint  recol¬ 
lections  of  |)rimitive  tradition,  had  rested  for  four  thousand  years. 
His  coming  was  not  an  event  which  took  the  world  by  surprise. 
It  had  been  anticipated.  It  had  been  shadowed  forth  in  the  belief 
of  the  patriarchs,  and  in  the  religion  of  the  Jewish  people — so 
much  so,  that  His  appearance  was  essential  to  confirm  the  truth  of 
the  same.  They  Avere,  so  to  speak,  Christians,;  but  Christians  hav¬ 
ing  the  object  of  their  hope  in  the  future,  Avhilst  Ave,  on  the  other 
hand,  for  nearly  tAVO  thousand  years,  have  looked  bar  kwards  Avith 
intense  gaze  upon  His  sepulchre  AAdiich  the  prophet  dt dared  should 
be  glorious.  He  established  the*  evidence  of  His  mission  from  God, 
Dy  His  miracles ;  so  that  man  saAV  that  in  them  was  the  teaching  of 


SEEMON  BEFORE  COJfGRESS. 


SG-i 

their  Creator  and  of  their  supreme  Lord.  Let  us  now  ask,  what 
’v\'as  the  sum  (  f  the  Saviour’s  teaching  ?  I  speak  not  now  of  the 
mysteries  which  lie  revealed ;  nor  yet  of  those  doctrines  which  are 
tlie  dogmata  of  faith ;  but  I  speak  of  the  moral  j^art  of  liis  teach¬ 
ing,  whicii  has  its  foundation  in  doctrine,  whilst  both  morals  and 
doctrine,  to  be  of  authority,  must  have  God  for  their  Author. 

Detail  would  be  impossible — but  let  us  direct  our  attention  to 
one  or  two  principles  which  the  teachings  of  our  Saviour  distinctly 
conveyed,  and  established  as  the  groundwork  from  which  other 
conse(piences  in  inlinite  variety  of  detail  may  be  deduced.  One  of 
these  principles  is  that  no  man  upon  earth  is  irresponsible — that  al¬ 
though  his  iellow-creature  may  not  have  the  right  or  the  power,  or 
the  opportunity  to  call  him  to  account,  yet  he  lives  under  the  uni¬ 
versal  and  watchful  eye  of  his  all-seeing  God ;  and  whether  you 
t  efer  to  his  actions,  or  his  words,  or  the  secret  pui-poses  of  his  in¬ 
most  heart,  there  is  a  witness — a  God  of  infinite  justice,  to  whom 
he  must  render  a  personal  and  awful  account.  There  is  now  hope 
for  the  fallen  race  of  man — hope,  if  he  will  but  practically  believe 
this  blessed  doctrine ;  for  in  it  the  subject  and  the  sovereign,  the 
weak  and  the  strong,  the  oppressed  slave  and  the  despotic  master, 
are  equally  subject  to  restraint — to  prescription  of  limits — to  a  wit¬ 
ness  ;  and  all  know,  that  according  to  their  obedience  and  conform¬ 
ity  to  that  standard,  will  be  their  own  eternal  destiny  in  another 
world. 

Thus,  this  doctrine  teaches  in  itself  the  responsibility  of  man  to 
a  law,  and  a  witness  that  cannot  be  evaded.  You  make  laws  in  this 
hall  of  supreme  temporal  power ;  but  then  can  you  make  them 
binding  on  the  consciences  of  men  ?  Yes,  with  one  condition.  If 
men,  before  your  laws  are  enacted,  have,  as  a  princi})le  in  their 
hearts,  the  belief  that  God  sanctions  authority — that  subordination 
is  necessary  to  society — that  subordination  cannot  be  maintained 
without  laws — that  there  is  a  higher  and  holier  Law-maker,  who 
gives  sanction  to  your  laws — then  they  will  fear  to  violate  your 
enactments,  even  when  there  is  no  eye  of  executive  justice  resting 
upon  them.  Where  will  you  place  the  security  and  sacredness  of 
legislation,  but  in  this  principle  of  the  necessity  of  account  where 
deception  will  be  utterly  impossible  ?  And  yet  this  is  the  sternest 
view  of  the  divine  teachings  of  our  blessed  Saviour;  for  in  other 
respects,  he  made  all  those  virtues  which  constitute  at  once  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  the  individual,  and  contribute  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
State — made  them  sweet  and  dear  to  the  hearts  of  those  who  were 
imbued  with  his  spirit  and  walked  in  the  footsteps  of  his  example. 
He  was  the  eternal  Son  of  God — he  might  have  chosen  the  high  and 
honorable  posts  of  the  world ;  but  then  he  knew  that  humanity  had 
been  too  long  and  too  deeply  crushed  not  to  sympathize  with  its 
humblest  condition,  and  he  conferred  honor  on  poverty  by  being 
born  and  living  in  that  state,  in  preference  to  any  other. 

We  know  that  love  of  wealth  has  been  the  destruction  not 
merely  of  the  souls  of  those  given  up  to  avarice,  but  also  the  cause 


568 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


of  destruction  and  evil  to  others  who  stood  in  the  way  of  its  at¬ 
tainment,  and  accordingly,  to  counteract  this  hj'  his  example,  he 
chose  to  be  poor  and  humble.  Yet  wanted  he  no  dignity  to  fulfill 
his  mission.  If  he  chose  to  speak  according  to  the  language  of  hu¬ 
man  ideas  and  associations,  he  w^as  a  King — he  tvas  an  Eternal  King, 
by  virtue  of  his  Divine  character.  But  he  was,  even  according  to 
liis  human  form,  a  lineal  descendant  of  the  royal  house  of  David. 
And  yet  this  King,  when  he  goes  forth  among  his  subjects,  pro¬ 
claims  that  though  the  birds  of  the  air  had  their  nests,  the  Son  of 
Man  had  not  whereon  to  repose  his  weary  head.  Yes,  injustice 
existed,  and  still  exists  in  the  w'orld,  and  injustice  so  extravagant 
that  his  [)recursor,  the  Angel  of  the  Wilderness,  is  the  victim  of 
his  moral  courage,  pining  in  the  dungeon  until  the  dancing  girl 
asks  his  head  of  a  prince  of  Judah  ;  and  even  in  Judah,  where  God’s 
law  had  been  established,  the  petition  is  no  sooner  presented  than 
it  is  complied  with,  and  the  head  of  the  Baptist  is  furnished  on  a 
dish,  and  set  forth  before  the  gay  assembly.  So,  also,  in  the  life  of 
Christ,  injustice  places  liim  on  trial,  though  no  crime  was  imputed, 
and  he  also  is  made  the  victim  of  iniquity,  at  which  the  heart  of 
man  would  have  revolted,  had  it  not  been  under  the  domion  of  evil. 
Even  the  Roman  Governor  who  represented  the  mistress  of  the 
world,  pagan  though  he  was,  had  sufficient  natural  light  to  discover 
the  innocence  of  the  prisoner  tried  before  him  ;  but  the  moment 
that  the  question  of  enmity  or  friendship  to  Ciesar  was  mooted, 
that  moment  innocence  and  justice  are  all  sacrificed  to  the  passion 
of  selfishness,  which,  once  implanted  in  the  human  breast  cannot 
be  rooted  out,  or  subdued,  except  by  the  influence  of  the  example 
and  precepts  of  our  blessed  Saviour.  If,  however,  we  extend  our 
view  further,  we  behold  how  these  principles  began  to  work  grad¬ 
ually  in  the  temporal  regeneration  of  mankind.  It  was  necessary 
that  a  power,  superior  to  the  fears  and  the  hopes  of  the  great  of 
this  world,  should  be  manifested  ;  and  accordingly  our  Redeemer 
asked  no  permission  of  emperors  and  rulers  to  propagate  his  king¬ 
dom  ;  he  sought  no  alliance  wflth  the  governments  of  the  earth  for 
the  protection  of  his  religion ;  but  he  took  twelve  humble  men  and 
commissioned  them  to  go  forth  and  preach  his  Gospel.  They  dif¬ 
fused  his  doctrines ;  and  for  three  centuries,  under  the  iron  pres¬ 
sure  of  paganism,  when  it  thouglit  to  extinguish  the  rising  heresy 
in  the  blood  of  its  first  disciples,  that  religion  struggled  on  victo¬ 
rious,  showing  martyrs — heroes  for  the  love  of  truth— -for  the  love 
of  God — for  the  love  of  man — superior  to  the  iniquitous  tribunals 
before  which  they  were  condemned,  and  to  the  tortures  to  whicii 
oftentimes  their  tender  limbs  were  subjected.  Here  was  a  new 
lesson  for  mankind.  Although  the  ancient  philosophers  of  Greece 
spoke  in  pompous  phrases  of  virtue,  they  exhibited  no  example  ; 
they  made  no  converts ;  or,  if  they  did,  their  converts  did  not  be¬ 
lieve  sufliciently  in  their  doctrine  to  have  ventured  so  much  as  the 
loss  of  tlieir  little  finger.  The  religion  of  Christ,  then,  triumphed 
over  the  persecution  of  the  pagan  emperors,  and  at  last  we  behold 


SERMON  BEFORE  CONGRESS. 


565 


him,  wlio  ■was  the  heir  of  the  Caesars,  mating  his  reverence,  and 
acknowledging  the  supremacy  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Lookino-  back  now  from,  the  end  of  the  volume  towards  its  com- 
mencement,  we  can  find  n^any  a  page  more  dazzling  than  the  one 
which  was  added  on  the  day  of  the  emperor’s  conversion;  yet  it 
was  a  wonderful  triumph  when  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ  beat 
back  those  passions  of  the  human  heart  to  such  an  extent  that  Con¬ 
stantine,  of  his  own  volition,  put  bounds  to  the  authority  which  had 
descended  to  his  hands  without  limit-s  from  his  piedecessor.  Nom¬ 
inal  laws,  indeed,  there  were,  but  they  were  subject  to  corrupt  in¬ 
terpretation.  These  laws  could  be,  and  had  been,  overruled  by  the 
rescript  of  the  emperor,  and  the  subjects  of  the  once  free  state  had 
been  left  without  any  recognized  defense  against  the  inhumanity 
and  cruelty  even  of  a  capricious  Nero,  or  a  Caligula. 

Constantine  for  the  first  time,  out  of  reverence  to  the  principles 
taught  by  Christ,  decreed  that  the  emperor  should  no  longer  have 
power  by  rescript  to  overrule  the  established  law  of  the  empire, 
ilis  successor  improved  upon  that  concession.  Justinian  and  Theo¬ 
dosius  framed  that  code,  which,  however  it  may  be  unsuited  to  the 
changes  ■which  some  fourteen  hundred  years  have  wrought  in  the 
social  condition  of  man,  yet  exhibited  progressive  evidences  of 
limitation — spontaneous,  voluntary  limitation,  of  what  had  been  until 
then  supreme  and  boundless  authority.  The  events  which  occurred 
subsequently — the  influx  of  those  hardy  populations  of  the  North 
— their  rushing  down  upon  the  once  civilized  plains  and  cities  of 
the  falling  empire,  with  all  that  strange  admixture  of  bravery  and 
barbarism — presented,  as  it  'were,  a  new  world  of  wild  passions,  to 
be  again  softened  dotvn  and  mitigated  by  the  gentle  influences  of 
Christianity.  These  Northern  barbarians  burst  forth  like  a  deluge, 
and  it  was  only  the  principles  taught  by  Jesus  Christ,  Avhich  enabled 
His  followers  to  preserve  for  posterity  the  small  and  feeble- rem¬ 
nants  of  ancient  civilization  which  have  come  down  to  us.  Thus 
was  infused  into  Christian  nations  the  germ  of  regeneration,  be¬ 
cause  the  sacrifices  which  the  general  happiness  of  mankind  require 
from  each  individual,  of  what  is  personal  and  selfish,  of  ease,  and 
of  distinction,  and  of  dignity,  required  an  adequate  motive.  Man 
acts  not  without  motive.  The  Christian  religion  supplies  the 
most  exalted  motive  for  human  action.  In  vain  do  you  search 
the  writings  of  heathen  philosophers — in  vain  do  you  study  the 
splendid  recompense  of  self-satisfaction  which  so-called  philantliro- 
pists  offer  as  the  reward  of  virtue,  in  order  to  discover  an  adequate 
stimulus  to  virtuous  conduct.  It  is  only  in  the  divine  morality  of 
the  Christian  faith,  that  we  are  furnished  with  a  worthy  motive  to  a 
virtuous  and  holy  life.  There  we  are  taught  that  God  is  our  re¬ 
ward — that  He  is  the  rewarder  of  those  who  seek  him — that  He 
will  punish  your  injustice  toward  your  brethren — that  He  has  so 
honored  His  disciples  as  to  place  Himself,  as  it  were,  in  their  stead, 
declaring,  as  the  beneficent  Hedeemer  of  man  has  declared,  “  What¬ 
soever  ye  do  unto  one  of  these  little  ones,  ye  do  even  unto  IMe !” 


570 


AKCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


I  know  not,  beloved  brethren,  whether  we,  in  an  age  which  has 
much  to  boast  of,  but  wliich  is  not  yet  quite  perfect,  can  form  an 
adequate  idea  of  the  importance  of  this  element  infused  into  the 
human  heart  viz. :  the  love  of  God  for  His  own  sake,  and  the  love 
of  man  for  the  sake  of  our  common  Father.  But  I  do  know  that 
apart  even  from  those  sterner  rules  of  divine  justice  and  eternal 
responsibility  which  religion  prescribes,  there  is  infused  into  the 
doctrines  and  teachings  of  our  Saviour  a  certain  power  of  attrac¬ 
tion  which  wins  the  heart,  so  as  to  make  it  enamored  of  the  sacri¬ 
fices  by  wliich  the  world’s  selfishness  has  been  shamed  and  abated. 
Tell  me  the  calamity  to  which  man  is  subject  that  has  not  found  a 
remedy  under  the  impulse  of  those  divine  whisperings  ?  Do  you 
speak  of  age,  formerly,  in  enlightened  nations,  so  neglected  ?  Do 
you  speak  of  infancy,  abandone  d  by  its  criminal  authors  ?  Do  you 
speak  of  the  horrors  of  war  ?  Do  you  speak  of  the  rights  of  na¬ 
tions,  of  the  sanctity  of  the  first  government,  the  family,  and  the 
holiness  of  domestic  law  ?  Have  they  not  all  felt  the  hallowed  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  religion  of  peace  and  love  ?  Where  among  the  ancients 
do  you  find  public  provision  for  the  poor  ?  Where  were  the  hospitals 
of  heathen  civilization  ?  Where  do  you  behold  houses  in  which  to 
gather  the  broTcen  and  trampled  reeds  of  human  misfortune  ? 
Where  do  you  find  war  regulated  by  a  spirit  of  humanity  ?  Where 
do  you  find  a  recognition  of  the  rights  of  nations,  or  of  individual 
man  ?  Nowhere.  And  in  vain  do  you  search  for  any  other  origin 
of  those  blessings  than  that  source  from  whence  they  sprang ;  God, 
established  the  word  of  his  eternal  justice,  through  the  medium  of 
his  divine  Son,  upon  the  earth,  holding  man  to  a  just  accountability 
for  his  crimes,  and  making  virtue  so  sweet  that  the  very  sacrifices 
which  it  demands  become  themselves  the  recompense  of  its  exercise. 
Who  and  where  is  the  legislator  that  could  teach  me  to  rush 
into  the  atmosphere  of  pestilence  and  death,  in  order  to  minister  at 
the  bed-side  of  him  who  is  nothing  to  me  ?  Where  is  the  legisla¬ 
tor,  emperor,  or  president  or  congress  who  could  induce  me  to  re- 
linquisli  the  pleasure  which  I  might  share  with  others,  in  order  to 
go  forth  and  sacrifice  myself  for  the  relief  of  others?  And  yet  the 
law  of  Christ,  while  we  seem  not  to  speak  of  it  at  all,  has  infused 
the  i)Ower  by  which  we  have  seen  man,  and,  above  all,  woman,  who 
comprehends  this  power  in  all  its  divine  delicacy,  devoting,  year  by 
year  to  the  service  of  Jesus  Christ,  a  life  which  too  many  others 
waste  in  the  empty  vanities  of  the  world.  Nay,  more,  if  you  look 
to  the  high  governments  of  the  world,  you  will  witness  the  gradual 
influence  of  the  same  power.  In  England  we  behold  Edward  the 
Confessor,  diminishing  his  own  prerogatives  and  conceding  them 
to  the  people,  who,  from  these  very  concessions,  were  enabled  to 
assume  a  bolder  tone,  and  demand  from  his  successor  their  written 
confirmation.  Thus,  by  the  influence  of  Christianity,  you  have 
secured  the  first  great  ]iarent-character  of  the  modern  liberties  of 
the  Western  World.  Wherever  Christianity  has  not  gone  there 
has  been  no  progress.  Have  the  emperors  of  the  pagan  world 


SEEMOK  BEFOEE  CONGEESS. 


671 


al: ridged  their  ])OAFer?  Can  they  exhibit  any  instance  of  self-denial 
akin  to  those  to  which  I  have  allnded,  as  the  offspring vof  Chris¬ 
tianity  ?  And  why  is  it,  that  with  such  a  divine  code  as  that  of  the 
Christian  religion,  Christian  nations  have  not  yet  attained  to  the 
perfection  of  its  virtue  ?  It  is  because  men  will  not  obey  that  which 
has  been  prescribed  as  the  rule  of  their  conduct.  It  is  because 
they  choose  to  adhere  to  the  side  of  evil ;  and  were  it  not  for  this, 
it  would  seem  as  if  Christian  nations  ought  to  exhibit  again  the  ex¬ 
ample  and  the  beauty  of  that  condition  of  innocence — nay,  I  should 
say  a  condition  almost  more  honorable  than  the  innocence  from 
which  they  have  fallen ; — for  if  there  were  not  those  calamaties  in 
the  world,  where  could  generous  virtue  find  objects  for  its  ex¬ 
ercises  ?  If  there  were  not  the  wounded  amongst  our  race,  where 
would  be  the  opportunity  for  the  good  Samaritan  to  pour  in  the 
healing  balm?  If  there  were  no  poor  to  be  cared  for,  where 
would  be  the  opportunity  to  indulge,  under  Christian  influences, 
the  impulses  of  our  heart,  that  make  it  so  delightful  to  contribute, 
and  especially  when  in  deep  distress,  to  the  consolation  of  our  fel¬ 
low  beings?  Were  we  to  be  wisely  guided  by  those  rules  which 
are  to  be  deducted  from  the  moral  teachinga  of  the  Saviour,  the 
earth  would  seem  to  be  again  a  Paradise.  Then  there  would 
be  moderation  in  rulers,  because  they  would  know  that  just  in  pro¬ 
portion  as  their  power  is  augmented  and  is  bestowed  for  a  particu¬ 
lar  purpose,  in  conformity  with  divine  law,  so  their  responsibility 
is  multiplied.  Then  the  laws  would  be  made  in  the  spirit  of  Chris¬ 
tian  justice,  and  though  not  always  perfect,  yet  the  intention  of  the 
legislator  to  make  them  so  would  be  apparent.  Then  law  would 
have  a  moral  sanction,  and  obedience  would  be  the  dictate  not 
of  fear,  but  of  an  abiding  sense  of  duty,  truth  and  rectitude.  But, 
beloved  brethren,  I  have  dwelt  sufficiently,  I  trust,  on  this  topic,  to 
make  it  evident  that  whatever  of  political  liberty  is  enjoyed  by 
men  —  whatever  increase  of  popular  freedom  is  discoverable  — 
whatever  progress  of  equality  is  manifest,  must  all  be  traced 
to  the  influence  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  And  in  our  own 
country,  and  under  our  own  government,  those  blessings  being  so 
common,  we  are  likely  sometimes  to  forget  them.  Who  can  be 
so  blind  as  not  to  perceive  the  obligations  which  we  owe  to  the 
teachings  of  our  Redeemer  ?  Here  we  have  the  sublime  spectacle 
of  a  people  at  once  its  own  subject  and  its  sovereign !  Oh !  how 
important  it  is  that  we  should  act  in  accordance  with  the  teachings 
of  the  Saviour  in  the  text,  that  he  who  would  be  first  should  be 
the  servant  of  all !  In  a  country  like  this,  where  every  man  is  in¬ 
vested  with  a  portion  of  the  government,  how  should  he  be  admon¬ 
ished  in  the  exercise  of  his  prerogative,  by  the  reflection  that  even 
for  the  vote  which  he  gives  he  will  have  to  render  an  account — not 
to  his  constituents  alone — that  account  is  sometimes  easily  settled 
— but  to  a  just  and  all-seeing  God,  who  probes  his  motives  to  their 
very  depth  !  In  a  country  like  this,  in  which  we  have  had  the  benefit 
of  one  great  man,  who  approached  in  the  order  of  social  and  poll- 


672 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


tical  excellence  as  near  obedience  to  the  Saviour’s  prece})t  as  man 
could  apru'oach,  oh !  how  important  is  it  that  his  example  should  be 
kept  before  our  mind  !  And  how  natural  is  it  to  believe  that  a 
country  for  which  God  raised  up  so  distinguished,  so  singular,  so 
unap|)roacliable  a  public  deliverer,  is  to  be  worthy  of  its  origin,  and 
that  its  destiny  may  become  itself  the  medium  of  ditiusing  benedic¬ 
tions  upon  the  whole  human  race! 

At  this  moment  another  character  in  the  world’s  history  rises  up 
before  my  recollection,  and  the  contrast  which  he  presents  to  him  to 
whom  I  have  just  alluded  impresses  me  with  a  painful  interest.  On 
the  one  hand  I  behold  the  deliverer  of  his  country,  awaiting  her 
summons,  undergoing  many  sacrifices  for  her,  yet  with  a  modesty 
and  dignity  that  make  his  life  an  example  to  warriors  and  statesmen, 
a  kind  of  solitary  biography  in  the  history  of  the  human  race — 
something  like  the  very  creation  of  the  world,  that  can  have  nothing 
to  compare  with  it — I  see  him  again  in  the  fullness  of  his  triumph 
and  his  renown,  bearing  his  bright  and  victorious  sword,  to  return 
its  handle  to  that  loved  mother  whom  he  had  saved,  and  whose 
chains  he  had  broken,  lie  cuts  off,  as  fiir  as  depended  on  him,  all 
tbe  prospects  that  would  have  been  so  dazzling  to  the  eye  of  others. 
The  hour  had  arrived  ;  his  moral  triumph  is  complete.  There  is  an 
example  which  should  ever  be  familiar — engraven  ujion  the  fleshy 
tablets  of  every  American  heart !  On  the  other  hand,  I  behold  a 
leadership  almost  similar  in  its  origin,  but  in  its  career  how  different, 
and  in  its  end  how  disastrous !  With  the  example  of  General  Wash¬ 
ington  before  him,  you  saw,  during  a  revolution  in  a  European  em¬ 
pire,  a  soldier  undistinguished,  except  by  the  hidden  force  of  his 
own  genius — without  hereditary  claims — without  any  of  those  early 
manifestations  of  singular  talent  which  should  have  attracted  the 
eyes  of  his  country,  seeking  deliverance — but,  by  impulses  which  I 
need  not  describe,  springing,  as  it  were,  at  a  single  bound,  from  the 
soldier’s  tent  to  the  throne  of  a  hundred  kings.  On  that  throne,  is 
it  his  country  that  he  serves  ?  Is  he  disposed  to  minister  to  others 
— to  abridge  the  extent  of  his  own  power  and  greatness?  ISTo;  his 
career  is  like  the  flight  of  a  meteor,  astonishing  the  up-turned  e}'es 
of  the  world  ;  but  it  was  brief  as  it  was  brilliant  and  glaring;  and 
Vvhen  I  behold  this  same  man  also  resigning  his  sword  and  taking 
leave  of  Ins  generals,  at  Fontainbleau — oh!  what  a  contrast  to  the 
man  who  bequeathed  to  this  Republic  the  legacy  of  his  example,  only 
less  valuable  than  the  inheritance  of  freedom  which  he  won.  The 
European  general  disappeared  from  the  theatre  of  his  exploits  amid 
the  regrets  of  few,  and  the  censures  of  many ;  his  triumphs  had  been 
accompanied  by  the  cries,  and  his  downfall  was  pursued  by  almost 
the  curses,  of  the  son-less  mothers  of  France,  whose  growing  pro¬ 
geny  he  had  torn  from  their  sides,  one  after  the  other,  as  they  be¬ 
came  able  to  bear  a  weapon  of  death  to  the  field  of  contest.  I  behold 
him  at  last  in  a  condition  that  moves  humanity;  an  eagle  as  he  was, 
but  now,  Avith  crushed  pinions  and  broken  wings,  chained  to  a  soli¬ 
tary  reck  in  the  ocean,  and  left,  cruelly  left,  to  expire  as  no  eagle 


“  KIEWAX.”  573 

eliould  have  been  allowed  to  die.  What  a  contrast  between  the  two, 
and  what  stronger  exemplification  need  be  adduced  to  prove  to  you, 
tliat  if  a  man  would  serve  his  country,  his  fellow-men,  if  he  would 
j)rocure  to  himself  the  highest  enjoyment  of  wliich  his  own  nature  is 
capable,  he  will  be  more  studious  of  the  comforts,  rights  and  inter¬ 
ests  of  others  than  of  his  own.  And  let  us  all  remember  that,  if  we 
would  serve  our  country  and  our  kind,  we  must  seek  direction  from 
the  source  of  light  and  truth ;  that  we  must  trim  our  lamp  of  duty 
at  the  sun  of  righteousness.  If  we  trust  to  any  other  guidance,  we 
shall  inevitably  err,  reaping  disappointment  to  ourselves,  probably, 
and  inflicting  injury  on  those  whom  we  receive  credit  for  being  dis¬ 
posed  to  serve. 

I  fear  that  I  have  trespassed  on  your  patience ;  but  I  have  had  no 
means  of  reckoning  how  time  has  passed.  Yet  every  part,  almost, 
of  these  observations  might  itself  furnish  matter  for  a  long  discourse, 
1  cannot  conclude,  however,  without  making  my  profound  acknowl¬ 
edgments  for  the  kindness  which  prompted  the  thought,  and  the 
honor  conferred  upon  me  in  carrying  it  out,  of  requesting  me,  all 
unprepared  as  I  have  been,  to  address  you  from  this  place.  Nor 
can  I  withhold  my  sincere  acknowledgments  for  the  patient  attention 
with  which  you  have  listened  to  the  remarks  that  I  have  oflered  ; 
and  now  I  would  breathe  a  prayer  to  God,  that  he  will  preserve  you, 
and  that  you,  above  all,  to  whom  the  nation  and  the  world  look 
Avith  so  much  confidence,  may  be  guided  in  your  deliberations  by 
the  Spirit  of  God ;  that  you  may  be  enlightened  where  light  is  ne¬ 
cessary,  and  swayed  in  your  judgment  in  favor  of  those  decisions 
Avhich  Avill  at  once  promote  the  glory  of  our  common  Father,  and 
the  interests  of  this  great  and  growing  country,  whose  destinies  may 
exercise  hereafter  so  important  an  influence  upon  the  nations  of  the 
earth. 


BISHOP  PIUG-HES — “KIRWAN.” 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Freeman's  Journal : 

Dear  Sir — I  see  a  certain  work  announced,  and  much  lauded 
in  several  of  the  newspapers,  entitled  “  Kirwan’s  Letters  to  Bishop 
Iluabes.”  I  have  not  read  these  letters,  though  I  have  twice  at- 
tempted  to  do  so.  Why  they  were  addressed  to  me  I  cannot  com- 
})rehend.  It  is  said  by  some  who  probably  know  and  care  as  little 
about  the  matter  as  I  do,  that  the  author  of  “  Kirwan’s  Letters  to 
Bishop  Hughes”  is  a  certain  Mr.  Murray,  a  Presbyterian  clergy¬ 
man  of  Elizabethtown,  New  Jersey.  It  is  of  little  consequence 
whether  this  be  so  or  not.  The  writer  proclaims  himself  to  be  a 
countryman  of  mine,  and  from  intrinsic  evidence,  which  a  glance 
at  his  letters  is  sufficient  to  furnish,  I  fear  his  statement  in  this  be¬ 
half  is  but  too  true.  He  must  charge  it  to  a  lingering  aflection  for 
Old  Ireland,  our  common  mother,  if  I  take  the  liberty  of  saying 
that  I  would  rather  he  bad  been  any  body  else’s  countryman.  But 


574 


APwClIBrsnOP  HUGHES. 


there  is  no  remedy.  Ireland,  happily,  has  hut  few  such  sons  as  he, 
and  over  what  she  would  regard  as  their  ingi-atitiide,  there  is  left 
to  her  but  the  melancholy  privilege  of  shedding  a  mother’s  tear 
for  the  waywardness,  in  this  instance,  of  a  remote  and  erring  child. 
In  the  ingenious  sophistry  of  maternal  affection,  she  w'ould,  no  doubt, 
frame  excuses  for  him,  in  that  he  withdrew  his  young  limbs  from 
those  chains  that  have  been  riveted  on  her  for  centuries — in  that 
her  domestic  misfortunes  caused  him  to  be  snatched  from  her  bo¬ 
som,  and  consigned  to  foreign  matrons  who,  albeit  most  charitably 
disposed  toward  the  boy,  loved  not  his  mother.  In  the  charity  of 
her  affection  she  could  foi’give  him  all  that  might  be  attributable 
to  the  mere  accidents  of  his  youth,  but  her  heart  would  feel  an 
additional  pang  if  she  'were  to  know  that  any  son  of  hers,  far  be¬ 
yond  the  western  horizon  that  bounds  her  vision,  could  be  so  un¬ 
true  to  her  and  to  himself  as  in  the  maturity  of  his  years  to  make 
a  boast  of  his  apostacy,  and  rejoice  in  the  calamities  of  his  child¬ 
hood. 

Of  myself,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  read  him,  “  Kirwan”  has 
spoken  in  terras  of  personal  respect.  He  professes  to  regard  me 
as  a  man  of  talents,  of  whom  even  Ireland  need  not  be  ashamed. 
He  has  no  sympathy  with  those  men  who,  a  few  years  ago,  at- 
tem])ted  to  bear  me  down  by  the  rudeness  of  their  assault.  In  all 
this  “Kirwan”  does  honor  to  himself;  but  Avhen,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  order  to  damage  the  church  he  has  forsaken,  he  imputes 
to  me  a  want  of  sincerity  in  my  belief  and  profession  of  the  Cath¬ 
olic  faith,  he  does  great  injustice  to  the  generous  instinct  of  his 
Irish  nature,  and  betrays  only  the  bad  effects  of  his  Presbyterian 
training.  The  insinuation  is,  that  being  a  man  of  talents  like  him¬ 
self,  I  must  see  the  pretended  errors  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  he 
does  ;  that  I  have  a  public  part  to  sustain,  and  that  I  sustain  it,  irre¬ 
spective  of  the  better  light  which  he  supposes  I  must  have,  as  a 
private  individual.  This  is  a  very  injurious  imputation.  It  de¬ 
stroys,  in  my  mind,  the  value  of  auy  courtesy  which  he  may  have 
intended  to  use  toward  me  personally. 

I  know  not  by  what  right  “  Kirwan”  could  have  indulged  in  this 
strange  speculation  ;  but  it  suggests  to  me  an  idea,  which  may,  or 
may  not,  be  well  founded.  We  all  know  that  Atheists,  for  in¬ 
stance,  seem  impelled  by  some  i^aramount  interior  law  of  their 
being  to  speak  of  religion  as  if  it  Avas  any  concern  of  theirs.  We 
know  that  those  who  have  renounced  the  Catholic  faith  seem  gov-, 
erned  by  the  same  law,  in  reference  to  the  communion  Avhich  they 
have  forsaken,  and  a  little  insight  of  the  human  heart,  confirmed 
by  the  testimony  of  persons  who  have  gone  through  the  melan¬ 
choly  experience,  Avill  sufficiently  account  for  what  Avould  other¬ 
wise  seem  inex^ilicable.  The  Protestant  who  enters  the  Church, 
by  the  increase  of  his  belief,  fills  up  a  void  in  his  heart,  and  is  af- 
terAvard  more  engaged  Avith  the  fullness  of  faith  which  he  has  re- 
ceiA-e  l,  than  Avith  the  vacuity  he  has  left  behind.  But  AAdien  the 
transition  is  in  the  other  direction,  as  in  “  Kirwan’s”  case,  the  mind 


575 


“  KIRWAN.” 

becomes  eiif^aged  in  the  unnatural  attempt  to  expel  from  itself  the 
substance  of  faith,  and  to  satisfy  itself,  instead,  with  emptiness  of 
negative  belief.  Such  minds,  in  spite  of  their  efforts,  must  live,  in 
a  certain  sense,  on  the  old  stock  of  their  religious  convictions,  even 
by  combating  what  they  cannot  altogether  destroy. 

Our  Protestant  friends  have  rejoiced  abundantly  in  the  occasional 
fall  of  some  unhappy  priest  of  our  communion.  These  were  gen¬ 
erally  unfortunate  men  before  their  transition,  and  after  struggling 
by  a  process  such  as  we  have  referred  to,  for  years,  we  find  many 
of  them  returning  again,  and  with  tears  acknowledging  that  their 
apostacy  was  but  the  act  of  passion  ;  that  they  did  not  disbelieve 
the  Church,  but  were  angry  with  her;  that  their  writing  against 
her  had  a  double  object,  to  gratify  their  resentment,  and  if  possi¬ 
ble  to  wear  out  the  convictions  of  her  teachings  from  their  troubled 
breasts.  Whether  Kirwan’s”  case  is  analogous,  it  is  not  for  me  to 
say.  But,  at  all  events,  I  protest  against  his  applying  to  me  any 
unworthy  test  with  which  his  own  consciousness  of  motives  may, 
or  may  not,  have  made  him  familiar. 

The  object  of  “  Kirwan’s”  letters  is  to  show  the  reasons  why  he 
left  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  reasons  why  he  cannot  return. 
Certainly,  he  is  at  liberty  to  wwite  on  any  subject,  and  give  his  rea¬ 
sons,  although  the  public  never  asked  for  them,  so  far  as  I  know  ; 
nor  is  it,  to  Catholics  especially,  of  the  least  importance  whether  he 
returns  or  not.  He  would  not  have  been  missed,  and  even  if  he 
had,  the  Church  has  been  amply  compensated,  in  the  accession  of 
very  numerous  and  distinguished  Protestant  clergymen,  both  in 
Europe  and  America.  For  his  own  sake  alone  has  the  question  of 
his  leaving  or  returning  of  the  smallest  consequence.  Yet  his  let¬ 
ters  appear  to  have  attracted  some  attention,  Avhich  is  to  be  as¬ 
cribed  not  to  any  novelty  in  the  ])retended  argument,  but  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  sprightliness  of  style  in  assailing  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  which  renders  them  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the  filthy  vol¬ 
umes  that  have  been  written  on  the  same  side  and  on  the  same 
subject.  It  is  even  said  that  the  writer  has  secured  for  them  a 
portion  of  public  attention  by  the  fact  of  publishing  the  name  of 
Bishop  Hughes,  and  concealing  the  name  of  the  writer.  Be  all 
this  as  it  may,  they  have  attracted  some  notice,  and  it  is  not  un¬ 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  many  Protestants  who  have  read  them 
■would  be  disposed  to  hear  what  might  be  said  on  the  other  side 
of  the  question.  Under  this  view  of  the  case,  I  propose  to  pub¬ 
lish  a  series  of  letters  in  your  Journal,  on  the  same  great  tojiics 
which  “  Kirwan”  has  discussed — and  whereas  he  has  published 
reasons  for  hav  ing  left  the  Catholic  Church,  and  for  refusing  to 
return,  the  object  of  my  letters  will  be  to  show  that  no  Catliolic 
ought  to  forsake  his  church,  and  that  all  Protestants  who  have  zeal 
for  their  sab  ation  ought  to  enter  her  communion  with  as  little  de¬ 
lay  as  possible. 

This  being  the  object  of  my  letter  it  will  be  quite  unnecessary 
for  me  to  refer  to  the  language,  or  the  order  and  distribution  of 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


0  76 

the  subjects  by  “Kirwan.”  In  fact,  I  will  use  his  letters,  not  as  the 
cause,  but  as  an  occasion  which  I  will  take  advantage  of,  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  those  among  our  Protestant  friends,  who  may 
desire  to  be  informed  on  the  subject,  an  opportunity  of  making  up 
their  minds  on  the  relative  strength  of  the  arguments  for  and 
against  tjie  Catholic  religion.  The  widely  extended  circulation  of 
your  paper  will  bring  what  I  shall  write  immediately  under  the  eyes 
of  both  Catholic  and  Protestant  readetJF  in  different  parts  of  the 
country.  Neither  is  it  unreasonable,  that  such  a  series  of  letters  , 
should  be  furnished  at  the  present  time ;  however  much  I  may  regret 
chat  the  work  is  not  to  be  undertaken  by  some  one  having  less  occupa¬ 
tion  and  more  capacity  to  do  it  justice  than  myself.  The  relative  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  Churches,  at  the  present  time,  is 
one  of  deep  interest  to  earnest  and  reflecting  minds  among  all  par¬ 
ties.  Since  the  event  commonly  called  the  there  has 

perhaps  been  no  period  when  the  Catholic  religion  was  looked  upon 
with  so  little  disfavor  by  those  unhappily  separated  from  her  com¬ 
munion,  as  the  present.  Much  ignorance,  and  much  })rejudice,  no 
doubt,  still  prevails  among  them  ;  and  it  we  see  an  uneasiness  of 
mind,  an  almost  general  condition  of  unsettled  convictions  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  matters  of  belief ;  if  we  witness  a  yearning  after  something 
fixed  and  stable  in  doctrine  ;  a  desire  for  such  a  course  of  events  as 
might  lead  to  general  unity  among  Christians — every  good  man 
should  labor  to  encourage  these  dispositions,  and  point  out  the  only 
means  by  which  the  object  aimed  at  can  ever  be  attained.  It  is  ad¬ 
mitted  by  many  of  themselves  that  Protestantism,  whatever  it  may 
be  as  a  theory,  has  not  come  up  in  practice  to  the  anticipation  of 
its  founders.  In  Germany  it  has  allowed  millions  to  glide  through 
its  feeble  restraints  and  pass  into  Rationalism  and  Infidelity,  and 
this,  too,  not  by  opposing  its  principles,  but  by  applying  a  bolder 
logic  to  their  consequences.  In  England  it  has  perverted  the  ancient 
resources  of  the  poor,  and  permitted  them  to  sink  into  a  lamentable 
condition  of  ignorance  on  the  subject  of  religion  and  of  moral  de¬ 
pravity.  Working  within  itself  it  has  given  rise  to  doubts  and  di¬ 
visions  until  the  names  of  its  sects  have  almost  become  legion. 
And  it  is  only  in  contemplating  these  its  results,  that  many  sin¬ 
cere  men  desire  earnestly  that  in  the  providence  of  the  Almighty, 
some  remedy  might  be  found,  which  would  arrest  and  repair  the 
jiresent  disorder.  From  all  this,  it  is  but  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  a  treatise  which  should  set  forth  almost  in  any  form  the  relative 
grounds  of  the  two  systems  of  religion,  without  any  of  the  acer¬ 
bity  of  mere  controversy,  would  be  hailed  by  a  large  portion  of  the 
public.  This  is  what  I  shall  aim  at  accomplishing. 

For  a  week  or  two  I  shall  be  absent  from  the  city,  and  as  soon 
after  my  return  as  possible  I  shall  commence,  in  the  form  of  letters, 
a  statement  and  review  of  what  may  be  deemed  most  important  on 
this  great  question. 

JOHN,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


December,  1857. 


LETTEES  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHUECH. 


577 


The  Importance  of  being  in  Communion  with  Christ’s  One 
Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic  Church,  by  Rt.  Rev.  John 
Hughes,  D.  D. 

LETTER  I. 

Dear  Reader : 

1.  Allow  me  to  consider  yon,  as  one  of  those,  not  in  communion 
Avdth  the  Church,  to  whom  these  letters  are  addressed  ;  and,  let  me 
entreat  of  you,  to  meditate  on  their  contents,  as  if  they  were  writ¬ 
ten  for  yourself  alone.  They  are  dictated,  on  my  paid,  by  a  spirit 
of  charity,  so  far  as  I  can  be  conscious  of  motives ;  for  I  should 
have  but  little  hope  of  Heaven’s  pardon,  if  I  were  capable  of  wri¬ 
ting  Avith  any  other  intention  than  that  of  bringing  yoxi  to  the 
knowledge  and  profession  of  the  xohole  truth  of  Christianity  in  this 
life — as  the  appointed  means  of  conducting  you  to  the  enjoyment 
of  eternal  happiness  in  the  better  life  Avhich  is  to  come. 

2.  I  do  not  mean  to  notice  those  trivial  writings  which  are  pub¬ 
lished  from  time  to  time,  outside  of,  and  against,  the  Communion 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  eftect  on  your  mind,  if  they  produce 
any,  is  to  prejudice  you  against  a  faith  Avhich  you  do  not  believe  ; 
and  to  unsettle,  perplex,  and  confuse  you  in  reference  to  Avhat  you 
do  believe.  Besides  this,  the  meana  employed  to  produce,  these  re¬ 
sults  in  your  mind  and  feelings,  are  generally  unworthy  of  Chris 
tian  writers.  If  you  are  at  all  familidr  Avith  the  style  and  manner 
of  these  anti-Catholic  Avritings,  you  must  have  perceived  that  they 
are  remarkable  for  levity ;  that  a  sneer,  a  sarcasm,  a  little  anecdote, 
a  stroke  of  ridicule,  is  deemed  by  their  authors  a  sufficient  argu¬ 
ment  for  that  world  of  readers  on  Avhom  they  intend  to  make  an  im¬ 
pression.  On  Catholics,  let  me  assure  you,  they  make  no  impres¬ 
sion  whatever,  except  it  be  one  of  regret  and  pity.  What  they 
put  forth  of  real  objection  to  the  Catholic  religion  has  been  said — ■ 
and  better  said — more  than  two  hundred  years  ago,  and  has  been 
often  and  often  repeated  since ;  but  this  also  has  been  often  and  often 
refuted.  ISo  that  now,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  new  in  the  way 
of  objection  to  the  real  doctrines  of  the  Church. 

In  this  statement  of  the  case,  dear  reader,  do  not  accuse  me  of 
an  attempt  to  mislead  you.  Tliat  whole  outburst  of  pretended  ar¬ 
gument  with  Avhich  the  Reformers,  as  they  are  now  almost  ironi~ 
rally  called,  astonished  the  Christian  world,  AA'^as  leisurely  reviewed, 
and  logically,  as  Avell  as  theologically  refuted,  by  (not  to  name  oth¬ 
ers)  the  brotlier  Wallemburgs,  Bossuet,  Beccani,  Bellarmine  of  the 
Society  of  Jesus,  and  others.  Since  that  period,  there  have,  of 
course,  been  many  names  appended  to  the  list,  on  both  sides ;  but 
the  question  in  dispute  has  ever  remained  the  same:  “/s  the  Cath¬ 
olic  religion  the  same  which  Christ  revealed  to  that  Society  of  men  who 
adhered  to  His  teaching  when  He  loas  on  earth  f 

Writers  in  the  Church — that  is  in  the  Society  of  men  originally 
37 


578 


AKCriBISHOP  HUGHES. 


constituted  as  above — have  always  maintained  the  affirmative  an¬ 
swer  to  tliis  great  question  ;  writers  out  of  the  Church,  with  rare 
exceptions,  have  always  asserted  the  contrary.  Little  if  any  thing 
7ievj  can  be  said  at  this  time,  on  either  part.  The  writers  outside 
the  Church  have,  individually,  their  own  mode  of  presenting  the 
objection;  the  writers  within  have  theirs  of  sustaining  the  defense. 
In  presenting  the  case  and  discussing  the  question,  as  I  propose  to 
do,  in  the  following  letters,  I  shall,  whenever  I  deem  it  right,  re 
peat  the  arguments  of  those  who  have  preceded  me,  using  occa 
fiionally,  if  that  be  possible,  some  of  my  own — and  presenting  the 
whole  in  my  own  individual  way  of  viewing  it.  In  doing  so,  I 
shall  endeavor  not  to  use  a  single  word  or  epithet  not  essential  to 
the  truth  and  force  of  my  argument,  which  may  give  you  pain. 
My  fixed  resolution,  with  the  grace  of  God,  is  to  employ  no  such 
word.  But  if,  through  human  weakness,  I  shall  be  found  wanting 
at  any  time  to  this  resolution,  I  crave  your  indulgence  in  advance. 

3.  When  Christ  came  on  the  earth  He  did  not  undertake  to  re 
fute,  but  on  the  contrary,  professed  to  confirm  what  God  had  re¬ 
vealed,  and  what  had  been  believed  by  the  Patriarchs  and  the  Jew¬ 
ish  people.  lie  did  not  come  to  oppose,  but  fulfill,  what  had  been 
divinely  foretold  by  the  Prophets. 

He  came  to  be  the  perfect,  but  still,  intermediate,  term  of  that 
true,  divine  religion  which,  from  the  fall  of  the  human  race,  had 
had  his  type,  and  symbol  of  anticipation,  in  the  present  ;  its  sub¬ 
stance,  in  reality,  in  the  fuUire.  The  same  events  on  which  the  hope 
of  true  believers  rested  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  constitute 
the  groundwork  of  faith,  for  all  time  believers,  after  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  Ilis  mission,  on  the  earth — so  that  the  coming  of  the 
Redeemer,  as  He  came,  was  not  less  essential  to  confirm  and  seal 
the  truth  of  the  Jewish  religion,  imtil  then,  than  it  was  to  lay  the 
everlasting  foundation  of  Ilis  own  especial  Church.  But  there  is 
this  difference,  that  whereas  Christ  was  only  typically  present  to 
the  Jews,  before  His  coming,  lie  is  eternally  and  substantially  pres¬ 
ent  with  Christians,  in  His  espousals  with  His  Church  in  the  sac¬ 
ramental  institutions  with  which  He  enriched  and  adorned  her — 
institutions  provided  for  the  spiritual  life  of  her  children,  the  guar¬ 
dianship  and  administration  of  which  are  hers  alone. 

4.  Pay  attention,  dear  reader,  I  pray  you,  to  what  this  blessed 
Saviour  said  and  did,  wffiile  on  earth.  This  at  least  cannot  be  ob¬ 
jected  to  by  writers  outside  the  pale  of  the  Catholic  Communion. 
On  the  contrary,  they  would  unite  with  me  in  recommending  you 
to  study  the  words  and  works  of  the  Redeemer — and  at  this  stage 
of  the  investigation,  it  is  important  that  you  should  do  so.  Now, 
in  doing  this,  you  will  observe  that  our  Divine  Lord,  in  addition  to 
the  signs  of  the  Prophecy  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  as 
fulfilling  a  portion  of  them,  wro^ight  miracles^  to  attest  the  divinity 
of  His  character  and  mission.  Having  established  this,  by  indis¬ 
putable  evidence.  He  entered  on  the  functions  of  His  public  office, 
as  a  Teacher  from  God.  He  addressed  the  people  of  His  nation ; 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


679 


some  believed,  others  refused  to  believe.  The  believers  became 
His  disciples.  Among  them  were  some  whom  He  had  called,  by  a 
more  speciiic  and  personal  invitation,  to  follow  Him.  Still,  they 
remained  confounded  in  the  ranks  of  discipleship  until  He  distin¬ 
guishes  them  from  the  rest  by  a  higher  order  of  vocation,  and  con¬ 
stitutes  them  Apostles.  He  speaks  to  the  multitude  in  parables,  but 
to  them  He  makes  known  the  mysteries  of  His  kingdom.  They 
were  Apostles.,  chosen  and  selected  by  Him,  to  carry  His  words  and 
works  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  perpetuate  them  through  all 
ages,  until  the  consummation  of  time.  So  long  as  He  remained 
on  earth  they  shared  His  lessons  and  hung  on  His  lips,  in  common 
with  the  rest  of  the  “  multitude,”  but  when  He  should  return  to 
His  Father,  they  were  to  be  His  teachers,  sent  to  all  nations.  To 
qualify  them  for  this.  He  kept  them  more  around  His  person,  as 
friends  and  intimates.  Much  of  His  discourses,  as  recorded  by 
the  Evangelists,  is  addressed  to  them  especially  and  exclusively. 
He  thus  distilled,  day  by  day.  His  divine  instructions  into  their 
hearts,  and  it  was  not  without  a  providential  purpose  that  He  per¬ 
mitted  them  to  exhibit  such  vagueness  of  belief,  such  dullness  of 
comprehension  ;  as  showing  the  natural  wealaiess  of  human  powers 
to  understand  divine  things — until  the  day  of  Pentecost — when 
the  Holy  Gliost  kindled  the  fire  of  the  Apostleship  in  their  souls, 
and  by  its  light  the  natural  darkness  of  their  understanding  in  re¬ 
gard  to  heavenly  things  w'as  removed  and  all  truth,  whatsoever 
their  Master  had  said  to  them,  was  brought  to  their  minds. 

5.  But  twelve  Apostles,  invested  with  equal  authority,  might  dis¬ 
turb  the  order  and  defeat  the  object  which  their  Lord  had  ap¬ 
pointed  them  to  establish  and  secure,  llis  kingdom  was  to  be  one — 
united  in  itself;  His  sheep  were  to  be  comprised  in  “  one  fold  ”  un¬ 
der  “  one  Shepherdf  and  not  under  twelve.  Accordingly,  out  of  the 
twelve,  being  all  Apostles,  and,  as  such,  equal  in  dignity  and  author¬ 
ity,  He  selected  one — Peter,  and,  in  addition  to  the  Apostleship, 
which  he  enjoyed  like  the  others,  conferred  on  him  sqyecial,  sinyular 
and  individual  prerogative  and  power,  which  had  not  been  conferred 
on  the  other  eleven,  either  singularly  or  collectively  ;  and  as  our 
Lord  bad  said  many  things  to  the  multitude  at  large,  and  some 
things  to  the  Apostles  alone,  so  also  He  addressed  many  instruc¬ 
tions  to  the  Apostles  as  such,  including  Peter.,  and  something.,  to  Peter 
alone,  in  which  the  others  had  no  direct  lot  or  part.  Satan,  he  said, 
desired  them  (all)  that  he  might  sift  them  as  wheat,  but  He  prayed 
for  Peter,  that  his  fiiith  might  not  fail ;  and  that  he,  being  once  con¬ 
verted,  should  confirm  his  brethren.  The  efficacy  of  this  prayer 
of  the  Man-God,  has  been  realized  in  His  Church,  from  the  days  of 
Cephas  himself,  through  the  whole  line  of  his  successors,  down  to 
the  exercise  of  the  chief  Apostleship,  in  our  own  times,  by  the  great 
and  illustrious  Pius  IX. 

6.  This  epitome  of  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  ought  to  be  to 
you,  dear  reader,  a  subject  of  earnest  investigation.  It  involves  the 
groat  outline  of  her  spiritual  organization,  her  outward  policy  of 


580 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


nnion,  so  to  call  it,  as  appointed  by  Christ.  All  were  believers  and 
professors  of  Ilis  doctrines.  Some  appointed  teachers  thereof,  to 
preserve  it  for  those  who  believed  already,  and  preach  it  to  those  wlio 
did  not — and  one,  for  the  sake  of  unity  and  order,  to  be  supreme 
of  the  “some”  teachers,  and  over  the  “  all”  believers.  Nearlv  two 
thousand  years  have  since  rolled  by,  and  yet  this  is  still  the  Church’s 
form.  Other  institutions  have,  meanwhile,  taken  their  rise,  run  their 
career,  of  a  few  centuries,  at  most ;  have  flourished,  and  faded,  and 
passed  away  ;  whilst  she,  the  Church,  has  retained,  even  in  her  ex¬ 
tended  relations  “  in  the  ends  of  the  earth,”  her  pristine  form  and 
organization  as  received  from  her  Divine  Founder,  or,  as  the 
fathers  would  express  it,  as  she  came  forth  from  the  wounded 
side  of  her  Spouse  and  Lord  of  the  Cross. 

V.  As  to  form,  order,  subordination,  the  Church  was  complete  at 
the  moment  of  His  ascension  into  Heaven.  But  as  to  the  divine, 
economy,  by  which  He  would  kindle  up  the  elements  of  her  exist¬ 
ence  into  spiritual  life  and  activity,  she  was  not  meant  to  have 
been  complete  until  the  fiery  tongues  of  the  Holy  Spirit  should  de¬ 
scend  on  the  Apostles,  to  light  the  inextinguishable  lamps  of  their 
mission  and  ministry.  From  that  day,  all  the  members  of  the 
Church  began  to  understand,  in  a  sense  far  higher  and  holier  than 
“  flesh  and  blood  had  revealed,”  their  mutual,  subordinate,  and  har¬ 
monious  relations,  one  to  another.  Such  is  the  outward  model 
of  spiritual  government  appointed  by  our  Blessed  Saviour  for  the 
pui’pose  of  preserving  certainty  of  doctrine,  and  unity  of  spirit, 
among  the  members  of  the  Society  founded  on  the  belief  of  His 
divine  revelations  to  men. 

8.  This  Society  is  Ilis  Church.  All  His  best  promises  are  made 
to  her.  She  is  the  “  pillar  and  ground  of  truth.”  Her  Divine 
Builder  laid  her  foundations  on  the  rock  of  Peter,  and  “  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her.”  To  her  ministers,  as  His  rep¬ 
resentatives,  He  gave  “  the  Keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.” 
Whoever  should  hear  them  should  hear  Him’’'’  whoever  should  not 
hear  them,  should  be  as  “  a  heathen  and  a  publican.”  They  should 
“  teach  all  nations,”  and  He  would  be  “  with  them  all  days,  even  to 
the  consummation  of  the  ages.”  They  preached  his  doctrines  to 
a  world  buried  in  sin,  in  prejudice  and  error;  and  as  often  as  the 
word  of  life  took  effect,  and  began  to  grow  in  the  heart  of  any  one, 
it  was  necessary  that  he  should  profess  his  belief  seek  admission 
into  the  existing  society  of  the  Church  by  the  gate  thereof — Christian 
baptism.  Being  once  entered  he  was  made  partaker  of  all  the  full¬ 
ness  of  truth,  and  all  the  treasures  of  grace,  which  Christ  has  pro¬ 
vided  in  the  Church  and  not  out  of  her,  for  the  sanctification  of 
those  who  would  be  saved. 

9.  You  may  have  been  told  that  the  Church  became  a  false  guide, 
and  thus  fell  away  from  the  purpose  which  Christ  instituted  her  to 
fulfill  and  accomplish.  But  although  such  statements  may  have 
made  an  impression  on  your  mind,  yet,  on  reflection,  you  wifl  per¬ 
ceive  that  this  is  not  only  improbable,  but  that,  if  Christ  is  a  true 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


5S1 


Teacher,  it  is  impossible.  We,  poor  mortals,  have  some  knowledge 
of  things  but  the  knowledge  of  things  future  is  wisely  con¬ 

cealed  from  us.  Not  so,  however,  are  we  to  judge  of  our  Divine 
Reaeemer.  As  the  God-lMan,  all  things  were  present  to  His  mind. 
The  Church  and  her  teachings,  through  all  generations  then  future, 
were  necessarily  known  to  llim.  If  she  were  to  be,  at  any  time, 
an  erring  Church,  lie,  as  a  Divine  Instructor,  should  not  have  re¬ 
ferred  His  disciples  to  her  guidance  and  communion.  That  He  did 
so  refer  them  is  indisputable  ;  so  that  if  you  believe  in  Christ  you 
must  believe  in  His  Church,  and  if  you  reject  His  Church  it  must 
be  because  you  have  not  entire  confidence  in  His  words  and  promises. 
That  persons  who  do  not  believe  in  Him  should  adopt  this  line  of  ar¬ 
gument  would  not  surprise  me ;  but  that  it  should  be  taken  up  and 
urged  by  those  who  profess  to  believe  in  Him,  although  out  of  the 
communion  of  the  Church,  is  indeed  an  astonishing  and  painful  con¬ 
sideration.  It  is  the  same  as  if  they  said,  “  Christ  directs  you  to 
be  guided  by  the  Church,  and  in  order  to  aftbrd  divine  security  for 
your  faith,  He  has  promised  to  be  loith  the  ministers  of  that  Church  all 
days,  forever.  But  ^ve  tell  you  not  to  put  confidence  in  His  words  ;  to 
have  nothing  do  with  His  Church ;  to  fly  from  her  communion,  if 
you  belong  to  it ;  and  to  keep  away  if  you  do  not.” 

10.  If  you  are  told  that  you  have  the  inspired  written  word  of 
God,  for  your  guidance,  you  still  cannot  dispense  with  the  Church. 
For  the  value  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  not  in  the  material  volume, 
the  paper  and  binding,  but  in  the  sense  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
meant  to  convey  in  the  sacred  text.  If  you  are  told  that  the  sense 
is  plain  and  obvious,  you  will  not  believe  the  assertion.  For,  if 
that  were  true,  there  would  not  be  so  many  sects,  nor  such  endless  dis¬ 
putes  about  its  meaning  ;  and  those  who  tell  you  that  the  sense  of 
Scripture  is  plain  and  obvious,  are  themselves  living  proof s  of  the 
contrary,  since  they  cannot  agree  among  themselves,  and  are  con¬ 
sequently  so  reduced,  even  in  discharging  the  functions  of  Chris¬ 
tian  teachers,  that  they  dare  not  pronounce  except  with  a  faltering 
and  uncertain  voice,  on  the  very  thing  which  they  tell  you  is  obvi¬ 
ous  !  Tliey  give  their  opinion,  indeed  ;  but  with  befitting  modesty 
they  acknowledge  that  they  have  nothing  more  than  opinion  to 
give.  Now,  in  the  communion  of  the  Church  the  case  is  very  dif¬ 
ferent.  The  Church  dates  from  the  day  of  Pentecost.  She  is  older 
than  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.  Their  meaning  was 
written  in  characters  of  divine  and  everlasting  faith,  on  her  heart, 
and  in  her  soul,  before  the  first  of  the  E^■angelists  took  up  his 
inspired  pen.  You  might  as  well  say  that  a  man  could  not  com¬ 
prehend  the  meaning  of  his  own  manuscript,  without  the  interpre¬ 
tation  of  it  by  his  own  readers,  often  his  enemies,  as  to  say  that  the 
Church  should  or  could  be  ignorant  of  the  sense  of  Holy  Writ. 
The  Church  is  a  body  as  well  as  a  soul.  The  Scriptures  (I  speak 
here  of  the  New  Testament)  are  a  transcript  from  her  living  faith 
committed  to  parchment  for  the  edification  of  the  outward  body. 
The  writers  of  the  sacred  text  were  her  members  and  pastors,  the 


582 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


readers  were  her  pastors  and  members.  To  the  latter,  her  a2:gre- 
gate  inspiration,  as  a  divinely  appointed  living  teacher^  was  sufficient 
security  for  the  right  interpretation  of  their  meaning.  She  knew 
those  by  whom  they  were  written ;  she  knew  those  to  whom  they 
were  addressed;  she  knew  even  the  handwriting  of  their  authors; 
she  knew  that  they  were  but  transcripts  from  them  of  faitli  inscribed 
on  her  own  living  soul,  by  the  Redeemer  ;  slie  knew  their  meaning 
and  has  never  ceased  to  proclaim  it.  In  short,  so  conspicuous  is 
Chi’ist’s  fidelity  to  His  Church,  that  by  an  overruling  Providence 
you  are  indebted  to  her  for  the  very  Scriptures  which  “  some  wrest 
to  their  own  destruction  ;”  in  such  a  manner  that  without  her  tes¬ 
timony,  the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
even  tlie  Old,  would  be  to  you,  out  of  the  Church  as  much  a  subject 
of  doubt  and  disputation  as  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  text  itself. 

11.  I  pray  you,  dear  reader,  to  reflect  seriously  on  these  considera¬ 
tions.  I  bring  them  forward  in  my  first  letter,  and  niunber  them  by 
paragraphs,  because  in  subsequent  pages,  it  will  be  necessary  for 
you,  and  perhaps  for  me  too,  to  refer  to  them. 

In  religion  there  are  but  two  principles  of  guidance  for  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  the  human  mind — authority  and  reason.  Reason  is  the 
boasting  guide  of  those  who,  out  of  the  Church,  “  search  the  Scrip¬ 
tures”  for  themselves.  And  whereas  reasons  is  not  competent  to 
the  investigation  of  spiritual  and  heavenly  things,  it  happens  as  a 
necessary  consequence  that,  out  of  the  Church,  religion  has  degen¬ 
erated  into  mere  human  opinion.  In  the  Church,  on  the  other  hand, 
authority  is  the  principle — even  the  authority  of  God  ;  speaking  di¬ 
rectly  by  Ilis  Son  and  by  the  Church,  which  He  founded  v/ith 
guarantee  of  His  own  abiding  veracity.  The  members  of  the 
Church,  therefore,  have  all  the  security  which  the  attributes  of  God 
can  furnish  ;  so  that  so  long  as  Chi'ist  cannot  deceive,  so  long  is  it 
impossible  for  them  to  be  mistaken.  Hence,  the  various  articles  of 
our  Saviour’s  doctrine  are  believed  by  them  with  divine  faith ^  and 
with  that  supernatural  certainty  which  the  heavenly  gift  of  faith 
creates  in  the  soul.  This  gift  may  be  weaker  or  stronger ;  it  may 
vary  in  degree,  but  in  its  nature  and  pHnciple^  it  is  etern.ally  the 
same.  Its  language  is  uttered  in  this  wise  ;  “  The  Son  of  God  re¬ 
vealed  this  doctrine,  requiring  th.at  it  should  be  believed ;  and  the 
organ  appointed  hy  him,  the  ‘  Witness  in  Jerulsalem  and  in  Samaria, 
and  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth, — the  eA'er-living  and  ever- 
teaching  Church,  ATTESTS  THE  FACT.”  Here  is  a  basis  of  faith  which 
is  not  reason,  but  is  rational.  How  ditierent  the  process,  out  of 
the  Church;  “Christ  revealed  this  doctrine,  if  my  interpretation  of 
such  and  such  passages  of  Scripture  be  correct.”  In  every  article 
of  Christian  belief,  out  of  the  communion  of  the  Catnolic  Church, 
that  cruel  “if”  is  necessarily  expressed  or  understood.  In  the  one 
case,  the  thing  to  be  believed  is  a  fact,  susceptible  of  proof,  as 
such  ;  in  the  other,  it  is  a  hypothesis,  essentialy  involving  that 
element  of  uncertainty,  which  leaves  the  mind  to  be  tossed  about 
by  every  wind  of  doctrine. 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


583 


12.  Pardon  me,  dear  reader,  it  again  I  solicit  your  deep  attention 
to  the  several  consecutive  paragraphs  of  this  letter.  Are  you  one 
of  those  who  have  religious  opinions?  one  of  those  who  are  will¬ 
ing  to  endorse  the  teachings  of  Christ,  so  far,  and  only  so  far  as 
they  agree  with  your  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures?  If  so, 
lose  not  a  moment  ;  appeal  forthivith  to  God,  hy  earnest  prayer, 
and  a  strong  cry  for  tlie  light  and  the  life  of  better  things.  You 
know  that  without  fiiith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God  ;  and  you  will 
not  rejoice  at  the  conduct  of  a  man  who  boasts  that  he  has  shipwreck¬ 
ed  that  faith,  and  that  he  is  now  floating  at  large  on  the  ocean  of 
opinions  and  uncertainty.  It  may  be  that  you  are  called  to  occupy 
in  Christ’s  kingdom,  first  on  earth,  and  then  in  heaven,  the  place 
which  he  has  left  vacant  by  defection.  But  at  any  rate,  as  regards 
faith  within  the  Churchy  and  free  opinions  without,  I  shall  have 
more  to  say  in  my  next.  Meantime,  you  will  not  be  offended  if, 
without  knowing  you,  I  pray  that  God  may  bring  you  to  the  true 
light ;  and  that  you  may  be  “  added  to  the  number”  of  those  who 
will  be  saved. 


'  LETTER  IT. 

Dear  Reader : 

13.  Y’’ou  have  seen  from  what  has  already  been  said,  that  the 
faith  of  the  first  disciples  of  our  Lord  was  founded  on  His  miracles. 
You  have  seen  that  by  the  Divine  appointment  these  first  believers 
became  a  distinct  Society,  and  in  proportion  as  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  made  new  converts,  they  were  aggregated  to  the  communion 
of  that  Society,  which  is  the  Church  of  Christ.  It  was  founded  on  His 
word  ;  it  was  organized  by  His  wisdom  ;  it  was  the  depository  of 
His  institutions ;  the  witness  of  His  doctrines,  and  the  organ  of  His 
Divine  ministry,  through  all  time.  From  that  day  it  became  easy 
for  the  simple-minded  and  the  learned,  who,  from  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel,  should  be  imbued  with  a  general  belief  of  Christ’s 
Divine  mission  to  distinguish  the  Society  through  which  the  fullness 
of  His  truth  and  the  plentitude  of  His  sanctifying  grace  were  to  be 
received  and  appropriated.  The  organization  of  the  Church  was 
appointed  for  this  especial  purpose.  If  He  designated  Apostles  to  be 
the  dis})ensers  of  His  mysteries,  as  well  as  the  preachers  of  His 
word  ;  if  He  ordained  that  one  should  be  supreme  in  authority  over 
all,  the  lambs  and  the  sheep,  of  His  fiock,  it  was  not  their  personal 
advantage,  but  it  was  for  the  common  good  of  all  the  members  of 
which  tins  His  mystical  body  is  composed. 

14.  The  Church  thus  divinely  instituted  as  an  organized  external 
visible  Society  was  to  remain  so  forever.  Such  a  Society  must  be 
essentially  and  at  all  times  visible ;  and  among  the  illusions  which  pre¬ 
vail  out  of  the  Church,  there  is,  perhaps,  not  one  more  at  variance 
with  the  reason  of  man  or  the  varacity  of  God  than  that  which  as- 


584 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Berts  the  Church  to  liave  becoine  invisible.  It  is  the  same  as  if  yon 
were  told  that  a  ship  is  always  afloat  on  the  ocean,  but  on  one  im- 
porlant  occasion  she  was,  during  a  few  centuries,  beneath  the  waters, 
altliough  she  afterward  rose  to  the  surface  with  fresh  rigging  and 
a  novel  crew.  The  assertion  betrays  its  own  absurdity.  They  admit 
that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  perpetual ;  that  it  cannot  perish,  but 
that  it  has  been  at  times  invisible.  If  it  was  invisible,  by  what 
right  of  common  sense  can  they  assert  its  existence,  unless  by  the 
right  of  the  sentinels  placed  at  the  Saviour’s  sepulchre,  who  tes¬ 
tified  as  witnesses  to  an  event,  and  that  they  were  asleep  when  the 
event  occurred  ?  But  on  tliis  point  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  in¬ 
sist.  The  outward  preaching  of  the  Gospel ;  the  promulgation 
from  time  to  time  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  ;  the  conversion  of 
new  provinces  and  nations  from  century  to  century  during  eigh¬ 
teen  hundred  years  ;  the  succession  of  pastors ;  the  ordination  of 
new  levites  for  the  recruiting  sanctuary  ;  the  holding  of  council’s, 
both  general  and  provincial ;  the  suffering  martyrs  ;  the  founding 
of  churches ;  the  defections  of  heretics ;  the  contentions  against 
principalities  and  powers  ;  the  disputes — even  the  scandals  of  her 
members — all  attest  the  visible  perpetual  existence  of  the  Church 
as  a  continuation  of  the  same  Society  instituted  by  our  Blessed  Lord 
himself.  Consequently  the  promises  made  of  His  abiding  presence 
with  that  Society  by  its  Divine  Founder  have  been  fultiiled,  and  in 
that  case  you  ai’e  bound,  as  you  believe  in  Him,  and  value  your  sal¬ 
vation,  to  seek  life  tlirough  her,  or  else  His  promises  have  not 
been  fulfilled,  and  then  it  would  be,  not  the  Church  Avhich  deceived, 
but  the  Redeemer  himself! — a  thought  which  would  be  too  blas¬ 
phemous  for  you  to  entertain. 

15.  It  is  manifest  from  this  that  no  outward  society  can  claim  to  be 
the  Church  of  God,  which  received  its  form  and  organization  at  any 
period  subsequent  to  the  days  of  Christ;  hence,  one  of  the  signs  of 
the  Church  is,  that  she  is  Apostolical.  Any  society  depending  on  a 
subsequetit  date  for  its  origin  necessarily  stamps  itself  spurious  and 
counterfeit.  Its  doctrines  must  essentially  be  different  from  those  of 
the  true  Church ;  and  being  different  must  essentially  be  novel  doc¬ 
trines,  unknown  to  the  elder  Society,  and  being  novel  must  essen¬ 
tially  be  false ;  unless  that  it  be  pretended  that  a  new  or  another 
Christ  descended  from  heaven  to  rex’eal  them  as  contradictions  to 
what  our  Christ  had  revealed.  Here  then,  dear  reader,  is  a  striking 
attribute  wliich  God  has  made  a  peculiar  and  exclusive  sign  of  His 
Church  on  the  earth.  Read  over  again  what  has  just  been  said. 
Study  and  reflect  on  the  argument,  and  see  its  bearing  on  your 
own  condition.  The  true  Church  began  and  was  constituted  an  out¬ 
ward  visible  Society  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  When 
did  the  Society  of  the  so  pretended  Church  to  which  you  belong  take 
its  rise,  receive  its  form,  and  commence  its  functions  as  a  visible 
Society  ?  It  must  have  been  many  centuries  too  late.  The  doc¬ 
trines  on  which  it  is  fouinled  must  have  been,  at  the  period  of  its 
c  ;>mmencement,  new  doctrines,  and  therefore  necessarily  unrevealed 


LETTEES  OK  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH, 


585 


by  that  Saviour  wiioin  we  adore.  This  test  is  universal.  Heresies 
have  existed  almost  from  the  origin  of  the  Church,  but  their  au¬ 
thors  seiuarated  from  her  communion,  and  such  persons  as  they  had 
been  able  to  in^■olve  in  their  secession,  have  endeavored  to  form  a 
se])arate  church  on  a  model  of  their  own  invention,  and  framed  it 
with  a  A’iew  to  gi\  e  greater  extension  and  development  to  the  errors 
into  \v'hich  the}^  had  fallen. 

16.  Again,  the  Church  must  be  essentially  one^  as  a  visible  Soci¬ 
ety.  Tlie  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  God,  who  originally  revealed 
her  doctrines  is  Oar,  truth  is  necessarily  oac,  and  the  Society  founded 
by  our  Divine  Saviour,  and  imbued  with  the  belief  of  that  truth, 
which  is  one,  and  which  Christ  had  revealed  to  Ills  Church,  must 
necessarily  produce  unity  of  foitli  among  her  members.  As  long  as 
they  abide  in  the  truth  of  Christ’s  teaching,  there  cannot  be  divis¬ 
ions  or  antagonisms,  of  belief.  If  there  be  divisions  on  tenets  of 
Divine  Revelation,  it  will  be  because  one  section  or  other  will  have 
departed  from  the  truth  and  embraced  error.  The  part  so  embrac¬ 
ing  error  will  necessarily  cease  to  belong  to  the  Society  which  had 
been  founded  on  the  belief  of  the  truth.  The  defection  may  be  as 
great  as  it  was  in  consequence  of  the  Arien  heresy  ;  the  defection  may 
diminish  the  numbers  of  those  who,  until  then,  had  been  included  in 
the  communion  of  the  Church,  but  the  unity  of  that  Cliurch,  that  is,  of 
those  who  remain  faithful  to  what  had  been  the  common  belief  of 
all  until  then,  is  by  no  means  broken  up  or  disturbed.  A  diseased 
limb  has  been  stricken  from  the  tree  ;  but  the  tree  itself,  with  its 
root  and  trunk,  its  flowers  and  fruit,  remains  as  before,  except  in 
so  far  as  the  spread  of  its  boughs  have  been  outwardly  diminished 
by  the  amputation  of  the  diseased  part.  The  test  of  this  unity  in. 
the  visible  Society  of  the  Church  will  be  the  belief  of  the  same  ten¬ 
ets  of  religion,  originally  revealed  by  Christ,  and  witnessed  by 
the  Church  herself.  In  this  respect,  whilst  the  Catholic  Commun¬ 
ion  is  supposed  to  number  at  least  two  hundred  millions,  of  all 
nations  and  tribes  and  peoples,  there  is  no  division  among  them,  nor 
has  there  been  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity.  And  as  the 
rays  of  light  which  illumine  our  globe  are  traceable  back  to  the  sun 
from  which  they  emanate  so  the  faith  of  each  individual  in  the 
whole  Church,  is  identical  with  each  and  all  the  other  mem!)ers,  in 
regard  to  the  tenets  of  Divine  Revelation  made  known  by  the  Son 
of  God.  x\ll  believe  in,  and  have  recourse  to  the  same  sacramental 
institutions  of  the  Saviour.  All  recognize  and  revere  the  same  or¬ 
ganization  of  pastorship,  the  same  one  priesthood,  the  same  one 
episcoj)acy  of  Christ,  represented  and  vicariously  exercised  by  so 
many  throughout  the  world  ;  the  same  one  individual  primacy  or¬ 
dained  by  Christ,  and  conferred  on  Peter  and  his  successor  alone. 
Such  is  now,  and  such  has  been,  uninterruptedly  for  eighteen  hun¬ 
dred  years,  the  unity  of  that  visible  Society,  which  is  the  Church 
of  Christ. 

17.  But  there  is  another  sign,  still,  by  which  you  may  distinguish 
the  Church  from  all  other  societies  j  it  is  Universal  or  Catholic.  It 


586 


AECIIBISHOP  HUGHES. 


is  not  universal  in  the  sense  of  its  being  necessarily  in  all  places  of 
the  world,  at  all  times.  This  was  not  the  jDurposeof  our  Kedeemer. 
But  it  is  Catholic,  because,  1st.  The  truth  on  which  it  is  built  is,  by 
its  own  nature,  essentially  universal.  The  doctrines  which  our 
Saviour  revealed  and  taught  the  Church,  being  true  when  He  ut¬ 
tered  them,  were,  and  will  be  true  in  all  places,  as  well  as  in  Jerusa¬ 
lem  ;  will  be  true  through  all  time,  and  all  eternity.  2d.  Because 
His  commission  to  His  Church  was  to  make  known  to  “  all  nations,” 
thi-ough  “  all  days,”  until  “  the  end  of  the  world.”  3d.  Because  un¬ 
der  the  commission  its  promulgation  was  not  to  be  successfully  im¬ 
peded  either  by  the  rage  of  the  Gentiles,  the  vain  deliberation  of 
the  people,  nor  the  fruitless  and  combining  assemblies  of  kings 
and  princes  against  the  Lord  and  against  His  Christ.  “  All  na¬ 
tions”  were  the  field  of  its  operations.  Its  missionaries  were  not  to 
be  effectually  arrested  in  carrying  the  knowledge  and  means  of  re¬ 
demption  to  our  fiillen  race  by  any  barrier  ;  neither  the  expanses  of 
ocean,  nor  the  height  of  mountains,  nor  the  dangers  of  travel, 
nor  the  rigor  of  climate,  nor  the  barbarism  of  savages,  nor  the  cru¬ 
elty  of  tyrants,  could  deter  them  from  preaching  the  Gospel  to 
“  every  creature.”  4th.  The  Church  is  called  Catholic  because,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  she  is  spread  throughout  the  entire  world.  As  an 
outAvard,  vdsible  Society,  she  is  Apostolic  in  origin,  One  in  faith, 
Catholic  in  extension. 

18.  At  all  times  she  was  and  now  is  Holy.  Nor  do  the  bad  lives 
or  scandalous  morals  of  her  individual  members,  or  even  some 
times  of  her  eminent  pastors,  destroy  or  diminish  her  rightful  claim 
to  the  attribute  of  sanctity.  The  reason  is  obvious.  God  does  not 
apply  the  coercive  force  of  Almighty  Power  either  to  bring  men 
into  the  communion  of  the  Church,  or  to  make  them  personally  holy 
when  they  have  entered.  To  those  who  are  without  He  offers  the 
grace  of  vocation  and  of  fftith  that  they  may  believe  and  come  in  ;  for 
those  who  are  within  Christ  has  provided  all  the  means  and  grace  of 
sanctification.  But  in  neither  case  does  He  impart  grace  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  destroy  the  exercise  of  man’s  voluntary  concurrence 
and  free  co-operation.  Hence,  therefore,  the  sanctity  of  the  Church 
is  by  no  means  involved  by  the  want  of  sanctity  of  some  of  its 
members.  For  she  is  called  Holy,  because  :  1st.  Infinite  holiness  is 
the  essential  attribute  of  her  Blessed  Founder.  2d.  Because  the 
doctrines  she  received  from  Him,  and  which  she  preaches,  are  holy. 
3d.  Because  Baptism,  by  which  all  men  enter  her  communion, 
cleanseth  the  soul  of  those  who  receive  it  Avith  proper  dispositions 
from  all  that  is  opposed  to  Holiness.  4th.  Because  all  her  moral 
teachings  are  conducive  to  the  same  end.  5th.  Because  the  efficacy 
of  her  sacraments,  and  above  all  the  divine  character  of  the  sacri¬ 
fice,  which  is  her  highest  art  of  public  Avorship,  Avere  instituted  as 
means  of  ap])lying  the  merits  of  our  Saviour’s  death  for  the  sanc¬ 
tification  of  her  children.  6th.  Because,  in,  fine,  Avhatever  appears 
evidence  of  eminent  holiness ;  the  constancy  of  martyrs  ;  the  courage 
of  confessors ;  the  purit  y  of  virgins ;  the  love  of  God  ;  a  spirit  of 


LETTERS  ON  TUE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


587 


Belf-immol'ition  to  promote  the  welfare  of  man,  have  distinguished, 
and  still  distinguish  millions  of  her  members,  and  indicate,  even  in 
the  })ractical  exhibition  of  it,  her  claim  to  be  called  Rohj. 

1 9.  I  might  enlarge,  dear  reader,  on  this  subject,  but  what  I  Iiave 
here  said  is  perhaps  sufficient  for  the  present.  I  would  only  remark 
before  I  proceed  to  other  considerations,  that  so  far  as  it  has  been 
accomplished,  the  Catholic  Church  alone  has  realized  the  objects 
for  which  Christianity  was  instituted.  She  alone  converted  Pagan 
nations  to  the  faith  of  Christ.  For  you  well  remember  that  large 
portions  both  of  Asia  and  of  Africa  were  made  vocal  by  the  preach¬ 
ing  of  her  messengers,  and  the  caiiticles  of  her  saints,  ages  before 
the  imposter  of  Mecca  had  raised  the  crescent  of  dominion  or  un¬ 
sheathed  the  sword  of  extermination  against  her  children.  She  had 
converted  those  countries  from  Paganism  to  Christianity.  You  will 
remember  that  all  the  Christian  nations  that  have  been  converted, 
in  Europe  or  America,  from  Paganism  to  Christianity,  were  con¬ 
verted  by  the  efficacy  of  her  Apostleship  alone.  You  will  remem 
ber  that  no  other  Christian  association  has  ever  been  blessed  of  God 
with  a  power  to  convert  so  much  as  one  single  Pagan  nation  to  the 
light  of  Divine  truth.  It  may  be  said  that  the  Sandwich  Islands 
are  at  the  present  moment  an  exception  to  the  truth  of  what  has 
just  been  asserted.  But  the  experiment  here  referred  to  is  so  in¬ 
complete  that  it  cannot  be  adduced  as  any  exception.  For,  unless 
travelers  of  unexceptionable  character  misrepresent  the  facts,  tiro 
population  of  those  islands  is  rapidly  wasting  away,  whilst  the 
wretched  remains  are  said  to  have  imbibed  more  of  the  vices  than 
the  virtues  of  the  Christians  wdio  have  gone  among  them.  So  that, 
as  a  general  proposition,  history  attests  the  truth  of  what  I  have 
just  said. 

20..  Read  them  over  and  reflect  seriously  upon  the  subject  that  has 
been  treated,  and  the  reasonings  that  have  been  adduced  in  the  pre- 
ceeding  paragraphs  of  this  letter.  There  is  here  presented  to  you 
a  brief  outline,  not  only  of  the  Church,  but  of  those  peculiar  attii- 
butes  by  which  God  originally,  and  through  all  time,  constituted 
her  a  distinct,  united,  universal  society,  easily  distinguishable  from 
all  other  associations  calling  themselves  by  her  name.  If  those  out¬ 
ward  tokens  of  her  Divine  identity  through  all  ages  should  not  at 
first  impress  your  mind  as  strongly  as  they  will  do  when  you  shall 
have  reflected  more  upon  them,  it  may  not  be  amiss  for  you  to 
bring  any  other  religious  association  to  the  test  of  comparison  by 
the  standard.  Did  it  receive  its  outward  organization  and  visible 
form  from  Christ  and  Ilis  Apostles  when  they  Avere  visible  on  the 
earth  ?  If  not,  who  had  the  right  to  usurp  the  functions  of  the 
Redeemer?  What  was  its  origin  ?  Again,  is  it  united,  even  dur¬ 
ing  the  period  of  its  brief  existence,  as  a  religious  society,  in  the 
belief  of  its  own  original  doctrines?  Are  its  members  now  united 
in  believing  all  the  doctrines  Avhich  the  Society  ])rofess  even  at  this 
day?  Are  its  principles  calculated  to  hold  its  members  in  the  spon¬ 
taneous  unity  of  truth  ?  Or  rather,  are  they  not  calculated  to  divide 


688 


AKCIIBISHOP  HUGHES. 


them  into  multiplicity  of  opinions,  without  its  venturing  to  claim  for 
itself,  even  the  consciousness  of  “  what  m  truth  ?”  Has  it,  either 
by  its  doctrine  or  its  extension,  any  claim  to  call  itself  “  Catholic,” 
or  universal  ?  Has  it  converted  nations  ?  Has  it  furnished  mar 
tyrs  ?  Or,  if  it  does  claim  such,  were  they  martyrs  (that  is  witnesses) 
for  the  faith  of  Christ,  or  were  they  martyrs  simply  for  their  own 
opinion?  As  to  the  other  test — Holiness,  it  is  almost  unnecessary 
that  I  should  make  any  remarks.  Sanctity  out  of  the  Church  is 
judged  by  a  very  fallacious  and  very  arbitrary  standard.  Nor 
would  I  feel  authorized  to  urge  an  uncharitable  scrutiny  into  the 
lives  and  conduct  of  individuals  for  the  purpose  of  eliciting  an  an- 
wer  to  this  question. 

21.  Neither  is  this  necessary.  Examine  any  one  of  these  humanly 
organized  societies,  which  calls  itself  the  Church,  or  a  Church,  or  a 
branch  of  a  Church.  Examine  it,  in  the  date  of  its  origin;  in  the 
principle  of  its  constitution ;  in  the  character  of  its  founders ;  in 
the  mode  of  its  propagation  ;  in  the  uncertainty  of  its  preaching  ; 
in  the  disputations  among  its  members  concerning  its  doctrines ;  in 
their  divisions  and  sub-divisions  ;  in  its  dependence  on  human  sup¬ 
port  ;  in  the  vagueness  and  ambiguity,  and  fluctuations  of  its  creed; 
in  the  general  sterility  of  its  efibrts  to  discharge  the  functions,  and 
accomplish  the  purposes  for  which  the  One  Holy  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church  was  instituted,  and  it  will  be  no  difficult  matter ' 
for  you  to  distinguish  between  the  human  imitation  and  the  Divine 
reality.  The  very  names  of  these  societies  sufficiently  determine 
their  character.  They  are  sometimes  called  after  individuals  who 
founded  them — sometimes  after  the  civil  State,  the  Government  of 
which  created  or  adopted  them.  Again,  you  will  find  them  desig¬ 
nated  by  some  minor  point  of  practice  among  early  Christians,  to 
which  they  attach  ])eculiar  and  paramount  importance  ;  or  by  some 
peculiarity  in  their  ceremonies  or  mode  or  worship.  Now,  if  you  will 
take  the  pains  to  trace  back  the  historical  thread  of  these  societies 
to  their  origin,  you  will  find  that  in  all  cases,  and  witlioiit  a  soli¬ 
tary  exception,  they  were  built  on  the  mere  opinions  of  their  re¬ 
spective  founders.  This  statement  may  appear  to  you  startliiig,  at 
first  sight,  but  examine  it  strictly,  and  you  will  find  it  to  be  indis¬ 
putably  true. 

22.  They  claim  new  revelation  from  God.  Now,  were  there  con¬ 
nected  with  their  origin,  either  a  new  Christ,  or  new  miracles,  or 
new  Apostles?  What,  then,  was  the  basis  of  credibility  on  which 
their  new  doctrines  were  founded  ?  Simply  the  opinion  of  the  in¬ 
dividual  who  discovered  a  new  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
succeeded  in  inducing  others  to  strengthen  that  opinion  by  the  en¬ 
dorsement  of  their  own.  When  these  o]finions  became  strengthened 
still  more,  by  the  approbation  of  a  larger  number  of  persons, 
the  next  thing  was  to  systematize  them  in  a  code,  and  reduce  them 
to  a  conventional  formula,  called  a  creed,  articles  of  belief,  confes¬ 
sion  of  faith,  etc.  Here,  then,  was  the  platform  Avhich  was  to  sup¬ 
port  the  faith  of  the  new  church.  No  one,  however,  at  the  present 


LETTERS  OK  THE  CATHOLIC  CIITJECH. 


589 


clay,  considers  himself  bound  by  these  primitive  formulas  of  secta¬ 
rian  profession.  Articles,  creeds,  confessions  of  faith,  are  no  longer 
heard  of,  except  Avhen  some  unfortunate  minister  is  under  trial  for 
heresy,  or  in  those  countries  where  the  civil  government  has  made 
the  creed  a  portion  of  the  laws  of  the  land ;  it  may  be  said,  indeed, 
that  the  opinions  of  the  creed,  as  expressed  in  the  formularies,  have 
lost  all  authority,  and  that  each  individual  is  governed  by  his  OAvn 
views,  and  not  by  theirs.  This  is  decidedly  consistent,  for  it  Avould 
have  been  absurd  to  have  rejected  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Church — to  have  emancijiated  human  reason  from  the  yoke  of  faith 
in  her  teachings,  merely  to  bring  it  into  slavish  subjection  to  the 
religious  opinion  of  unauthorized  men.  Out  of  the  Church  there  is 
no  consistency,  under  the  principle  alleged  to  justify  the  separation, 
viz.,  that  every  one  has  a  right  to  read  the  Scriptures  and  judge  for 
himself — except  in  the  conduct  of  him  Avho  puts  aAvay  all  human 
authority  from  betwmen  him  and  sacred  text,  reads  it  as  often  as 
he  Avill,  forms  his  opinions  from  day  to  day,  with  the  well  understood 
privilege  of  altering  or  abrogating  them,  as  old  light  fades  away,  or 
new  light  breaks  in. 

This  process,  dear  reader,  necessarily  destroys  w'hat  is  most  essen¬ 
tial  in  the  belief  of  Christ’s  teaching,  viz.,  its  certainty.  Ilis  doc¬ 
trines  are  ];)resented  to  you  in  Ilis  Church  as  facts,  and  not  as  spec¬ 
ulations.  And  out  of  His  Church  you  cannot  by  possibility  have 
them  guarantied  as  facts,  but  you  must  receive  them  as  speculations 
alone.  Is  not  this  an  uneasy  and  unnatural  state  of  the  human 
mind  ?  Do  you  not  feel  that  your  spirit  yearns  after  some  permanent 
anchorage  of  Divine  faith  ?  That  it  longs  for  some  solid  and  secure 
resting  place  ?  That  it  cannot  be  thus  always  on  the  Aving,  sustain¬ 
ing  its  solitary  flight  in  searching  after  truth  through  the  boundless 
regions  of  opinion  ?  Will  it  not  at  last  be  fain,  like  the  dove  of  old, 
to  return  with  Aveary  pinions,  and  drooping  plumage,  to  the  ark 
from  Avhence  it  Avent  forth — enjoying  freedom,  indeed,  but  flnding 
no  repose. 

23.  But  you  say  you  have  the  Bible  to  fall  back  upon.  That  there,  at 
least,  you  may  drink  from  the  living  fountain.  Alas,  dear  reader,  in 
your  present  situation,  you  cannot  derive  from  the  perusal  of  the 
Scriptures  the  benefit  you  anticipate.  The  true  sense  of  the  Scrip- 
I  ures  is  one  thing — your  interpretation  of  th.at  sense  is  quite  .an¬ 
other.  If  you  build  your  faith  in  Christ  and  your  hopes  of  salvation 
on  your  unaided  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  you  are  still  build¬ 
ing  not  on  the  Savioin-’s  teaching,  but  on  your  oavu  fallible  opinions 
Of  this,  however,  I  Avill  treat  in  my  next. 


590 


AUCHBlSnOP  HUGHES. 


LETTER  III. 


Dear  Reader  : 

24.  In  tlie  preceding  letters  yonr  attention  has  been  called  to  the 
Chui'ch  of  Christ,  to  the  outward  form  which  she  received  from  her 
Di\  ine  Founder,  and  to  those  marks  or  features  in  her  organization 
which  will  enable  you  to  distinguish  her  from  all  other  religious  so 
cieties.  Enough  has  been  said  on  that  subject.  From  the  day  of 
her  foundation  to  the  present  hour,  she  has  never  been  without  op 
ponents  who  have  denied  her  doctrines,  and  wielded  all  the  powers 
of  the  human  mind  for  the  accomplishment  of  her  overthrow.  These 
opponents  have  been  called  by  dilferent  names  in  the  different  ages 
through  which  she  has  passed.  They  were  always  loud  iu  their  de¬ 
nunciations,  subtle  in  their  modes  of  assault,  oftentimes  formidable 
in  their  banded  associations.  Many  of  them  have  long  since  passed 
away,  but  as  error  is  inexhaustible  in  its  variety,  others,  with  new 
pretensions,  have  never  failed  to  rise  as  successors  in  the  work  of  op¬ 
position.  If  you  would  learn  the  various  names  by  which  these  combi¬ 
nations  of  error  ha\'e  been  knovm,  you  have  but  to  read  the  list  of  the 
sects  and  heresies  -which  are  found  in  the  annals  of  ecclesiastical  his¬ 
tory.  This  opposition  began  in  the  days  of  Christ  himself,  when 
some  were  offended  at  his  language,  and  exclaimed  among  them¬ 
selves,  “  This  is  a  hard  saying  and  who  can  hear  it  ?”  They  walked 
no  more  with  his  disciples,  and  placing  these  seceders  at  the  head  of 
the  list,  you  may  trace  the  succession  downwards  from  century  to 
century,  until  it  may  close  with  those  last  victims  of  a  common  de¬ 
lusion,  V  ho  a  little  while  ago  began  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the  Bible, 
because  the  world  did  not  come  to  an  end  in  the  year  1846,  as,  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  notions,  it  should  have  done, 

25.  As  I  have  already  mentioned,  there  are  but  two  principles  of 
guidance  for  the  direction  of  tlie  human  mind  in  determining  the 
doctrine  of  revelation,  and  the  true  meaning  of  each  tenet.  These 
are — authority  and  reason.  The  word’  authority  is,  as  you  know, 
connected  with  the  word  avthor.  Christ  is  the  Author  of  Revela¬ 
tion.  We  believe  the  fact  of  His  having  revealed  it,  because  of  the 
authority  of  the  Church  as  a  living,  perpetual  witness,  reaching 
from  the  individual  believer  in  all  ages  back  to  Christ  himself.  This 
authority,  in  its  human  form,  does  not  exclude  whatever  is  excellent 
in  human  reason,  but  represe'ats  it  in  its  aggregate,  functions,  and 
character.  But  the  Divine  element,  which  raises  it  .above  all  other 
orders  of  human  testimony,  is  the  fact  that  the  Author  of  Reveka- 
tion  identified  Himself  with  Ilis  appointed  witness,  the  Church,  in 
such  a  manner  that  the  authority  of  the  one  is  essentially  implied 
and  exercised  in  the  authority  of  the  other.  Hence  the  Catholic  be¬ 
lief,  on  .all  matters  of  revelation  or  of  doctrine,  is  as  firm  and  un¬ 
wavering  as  in  the  work  of  God  Himself,  on  which  it  is  built.  It  is 
therefore  not  mere  human  persuasion  of  the  truth  of  a  proposition, 
but  it  is  Tlivine  faith  resting  on  the  ver.acity  of  God. 

26.  The  principle  which  takes  the  place  of  this  authority  among 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


59  X 

sects  out  of  tlie  Church,  is  the  principle  of  private  reason.  Thus 
the  seceders,  in  the  days  of  our  Lord,  rejected  llis  authoiity,  and  fol 
lowed  their  own  private  opinion,  in  determining  to  walk  no  more 
with  Tliin.  Thus  Ebion  and  Cerinthus  rejected  the  authority  of  tlie 
Apostles,  and  sought  from  their  own  individual  opinion  a  Christian 
religion  which,  in  their  mind,  should  rest  on  the  approval  of  their 
private  reasons.  So  with  Arius  and  his  followers.  So,  in  line,  with 
all  heresies  and  all  opponents  of  the  Church  of  God,  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  until  this  hour.  It  is  important,  then,  to  elucidate  this 
principle  ;  and,  to  avoid  the  use  of  any  term  which  may  give  oliense, 
I  shall  designate  those  who  are  now,  or  have  been  at  any  time,  out 
of  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Cliurch,  as  Private  Rcasoners,  advo¬ 
cates  of  the  only  principle  which  is  common  to  them  all.  It  matters 
not  what  was  the  specific  nature  of  the  error  by  which  they  were 
distinguished,  whether  they  denied  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  of  God 
with  Arius,  or  the  validity  of  infant  baptism  witli  some  modern  sect, 
or  whether  they  denied  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead 
with  the  Swedenborg,  and  asserted,  in  opposition  to  Arius,  tliat 
Christ  is  the  “  alone  Jehovah  no  matter  v/hat  may  have  been  their 
differences,  they  all  agree  in  one  principle,  viz.,  that  of  private  rea¬ 
son  ;  so  that,  without  using  any  other  terms  of  distinction,  I  shall 
designate  as  Private  Reasoners  all  those  who  are  out  of  the  Com¬ 
munion  of  the  Church,  and  opposed  to  her  authority  as  the  only  liv¬ 
ing  competent  witnesses  of  the  truth  and  meaning  of  Christ’s  reve¬ 
lation,  appointed  between  God  and  man,  regarded  in  his  individual 
capacity. 

27.  I  may  here  remark  that,  so  far  as  the  teachings  of  Christ  are 
evidence,  there  is  no  promise  of  truth,  Divine  guidance,  the  means 
of  salvation,  or  eternal  life,  e.xcept  through  the  doctrines,  sacraments, 
and  sanctifying  grace,  for  the  convenience  of  which  His  Church  is 
the  organ  and  appointed  channel.  There  is  not  a  single  expression 
of  Holy  Writ  that  can  warrant  the  opponents  of  the  Church — the 
Private  Reasoners  of  any  age,  whether  past  or  present,  to  believe 
that  they  can  be  saved  so  long  as  they  willfully  reject  her  commis¬ 
sion,  and  trust  to  their  own  individual  opinions  for  the  attainment 
of  truth,  and  the  means  of  spiritual  life  and  participation  in  Christ. 
It  is  in  vain  for  them  to  say  that  they  belong  to  the  Church,  if  that 
associ^ion  which  they  call  Church  be  a  fabric  of  their  own  construc¬ 
tion,  based  on  the  principle  of  private  reason.  There  is  but  one 
Church,  if  there  be  but  one  God,  for  the  same  Deity  could  not  be 
th.e  author  of  two.  And  if  they  do  not  belong  to  the  communion 
of  the  one  Church  which  He  established,  then  are  they  necessarily 
out  of  the  way  that  leads  to  eternal  life.  How  far  their  dispositions 
to  embrace  the  truth,  if  they  knew  it,  may  plead  for  them  in  another 
life,  it  is  not  by  any  means  within  my  province  to  determine. 

28.  Now  that  we  have  brought  the  parties  to  this  controversy 
fairly  out  with  their  distinct  and  antagonistic  principles,  the  Catho¬ 
lic  Church  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Private  Reasoners  on  the  other, 
(with  the  Bible  lying  open  between  them,  if  you  please,)  w(i  shall 


692 


AECIIBISnOP  HUGHES. 


begin  to  liave  a  clearer  view  of  the  state  of  the  question.  The 
Church,  you  perceive,  is  united  as  one  man  in  her  decision  of  the 
points  at  issue.  The  Private  Reasoners,  on  the  other  hand,  agree 
among  tliemselves  in  nothing,  excei^t  on  the  principles  from  which 
their  disagreements  arise,  viz. :  every  man  on  their  side,  from  Simon 
Magus  to  Father  Miller,  has  the  right,  and  that  it  is  Ids  duty  to  in- 
ter])ret  the  Scripture  for  himself  The  Church,  however,  even  when 
so  exhibited,  does  not  by  any  means  recognize  the  dispute  as  be¬ 
tween  her  and  her  equal.  She  does  not  forget  her  divine  origin. 
She  does  not  forget  the  responsibility  of  her  office.  She  was 
originally  the  recipient,  and  was  to  be  the  preserver,  the  dis¬ 
seminator,  and  continuator  of  the  work  of  Our  Blessed  Lord,  in  re¬ 
deeming,  not  only  the  generation  in  which  He  lived,  but  all  gen¬ 
erations.  Her  spiritual,  invisible  life  is  but  the  communication  of 
His  Holy  Spirit,  which  she  never  can  lose  the  consciousness  of  She 
says  to  the  unchristian  world  wdthout :  “  Here  is  the  message  of 
your  God  ;  here  are  the  proofs  that  it  comes  from  Him ;  believe 
and  be  b.aptized  for  the  remission  of  your  sins.  To  those  who  have 
believed  and  been  baptized,  she  says,  “  Here  are  the  treasures  of  the 
merits  of  Christ’s  redemption,  and  here  are  the  things  you  must 
do,  in  order  that  they  be  applied  for  the  communication  of  Divine 
Grace,  and  the  sanctification  of  your  souls.” 

29.  The  Private  Reasoners,  on  the  other  hand,  say  :  “Here  is  the 
Bible,  the  written  word  of  God  ;  let  every  man  forsake  the  Com¬ 
munion  of  the  Church;  reject  and  despise  her  authority  ;  take  up 
the  sacred  volume,  read  its  contents,  form  his  own  opinion  as  to 
what  they  mean,  and  so  judge  for  himself.”  Private  reason  is  thus 
erected  into  a  tribunal  of  higher  authority  with  its  advocates,  than 
the  Church  of  God. 

30.  Such  has  been  the  principle  or  rather  the  fountain  of  all  prin¬ 
ciples,  so  called,  among  the  Private  Reasoners,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  Church.  If  we  pass  them  in  review,  according  to  the 
order  of  their  chronological  succession,  what  a  singular  chaos  of 
contradictions  and  confusions  do  they  exhibit.  Some  hundreds, 
perhaps  thousands  of  sects,  each  of  them  possessing  some  truth, 
which  they  carried  forth  from  the  Church  at  the  period  of  their 
separation,  but  no  two  of  them  agreeing  between  themselves^on  the 
errors  which  caused  them  to  separate  ;  so  that  a  rigid  analysis  would 
exhibit  them  mutually  refuting  each  other,  and  thus,  without  the 
Church’s  interference,  neutralizing  among  themselves  the  reasons  of 
their  common  hostility  to  her  teaching.  If  you  test  the  sects  that 
noAV  exist  by  the  same  standard  of  their  nmtual  contradictions,  they 
too  will  refute  each  other  in  the  same  manner.  For  instance,  the 
Catholic  Church  maintains  episcopacy  as  a  Divine  institution  of 
ecclesiastical  government.  Now  this  institution  is  assailed  and  de¬ 
nied  by  many  of  the  sects,  but  a  majority  of  those  separated  from 
her  communion,  even  in  their  capacity  of  Private  Reasoners,  decide 
that  the  Church  is  right.  In  like  manner,  as  to  infimt  baptism.  The 
Church  maintains  its  validity.  Some  of  tlaj  Piivate  Reasoners  op- 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


593 


pose  her  on  thrs  subject,  but  the  majority  defend  her  decision,  and 
pronounce  her  to  be  right.  AU  these  sects  and  denominations  have 
the  same  Bible,  but  they  so  torture  it  by  decisions  obtained  at  the 
tribunal  of  private  reason,  that  practically  it  has  not  the  same 
meaning  for  any  two  of  them. 

31.  In  elucitlating  the  cause  of  these  contradictions,  I  shall  have 
occasion  to  show  the  palpable  fallacy  of  the  principle  on  which  they 
all  depend.  If  writers  among  them  wish  to  seduce  persons  from  the 
safe  anchorage  of  Catholic  faith,  let  them  put  away  that  style  of 
(lever  scurrility,  in  which  letters  have  lately  been  addressed  to  me, 
and  adopt  the  defense  of  the  principle,  which  is  the  fountain  of 
all  their  errors,  and  all  their  mutual  contradictions.  Let  them  fur¬ 
nish  me  with  some  basis  of  faith  in  their  system  on  which  to  ground 
my  belief  of  wliat  they  call  Christian  truth.  Where  I  am,  reason, 
that  is,  rational  motive  founded  on  the  evidence  of  facts  ;  the  words 
of  Christ,  attested  by  the  Church  and  recorded  in  the  Scriptures ; 
the  perpetuity  and  triumph  of  the  Church  ;  the  constancv  and  iden¬ 
tity  of  her  teachings ;  the  precision  and  positiveness  of  her  doc¬ 
trine;  the  unity  of  her  members  ;  the  order,  the  subordination  and 
harmony  of  her  ecclesiastical  government,  all  unite  in  binding  me 
to  the  Catholic  Communion.  But  stronger  than  all  these,  or  rather 
giving  these  efficacy  in  producing  this  conviction,  must  be  reckoned 
what  is  promised  to  all  the  members  of  that  Communion — the 
supernatural  gift  of  Divine  faith.  I  can  feel  no  sentiment  but  one,  of 
sorrow  and  pity  for  the  inconceivable  delusion,  and,  in  some  cases 
the  exceeding  impudence  of  persons  who  call  on  me  to  forsake  the 
Church  of  God,  in  order  to  turn  Private  Reasoner  on  the  meaning 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  thus,  perhaps,  add  another  melancholy 
chapter  to  the  religious  wanderings  of  the  human  mind. 

32.  'Lhe  Bible  is,  indeed,  the  inspired  written  word  of  God.  But 
since  it  is  written,  it  hills  necessarily  under  the  same  laws  which 
determine  the  value  of  documents  of  importance  which  are  entirely 
human.  To  those  who  received  it,  as  its  several  books  came  from 
their  respective  writers,  the  Bible  had  in  the  circumstances,  immediate 
ju’oofs  of  its  authenticity.  But  to  all  other  persons  its  authenticity 
required  proof,  by  the  intermediate  testimony  of  an  unbroken  chain 
of  vc'tnesses,  reaching  from  the  writer  to  the  reader.  It  is  for  a  like 
reason  that  human  documents  of  importance  are  recorded  in  public 
offices,  so  that  in  case  of  doubt,  their  authenticity  may  be  duly  at¬ 
tested.  Noiv,  without  the  testimony,  that  is,  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  it  -would  be  impossible,  at  this  day,  to  prove  the  authenticity 
of  the  EXjle.  But  the  Private  Reasoner  denies  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  and  thus  deprives  the  written  word  of  God  of  her  testimony 
as  to  its  authenticity  and  inspiration,  and  consequently  of  the  first 
condition  essential  to  lu’ove  its  Divine  character.  I  ask  any  one  of 
them,  the  more  learned  the  better,  to  prove  that  the  book  which 
he  offers  to  me  as  the  Bible,  is  authentic  ;  except  by  deriving  the 
proof  from  the  authority  of  the  Church  which  he  denies.  For  me 
that  authority  is  sufficient,  but  for  him  there  is  no  other ;  so  that  on 

38 


594 


AKCIIBISHOP  HUGHES. 


this  point,  if  he  be  consistent  Avith  his  OAvn  principle  as  a  Private 
Reasoner,  his  argument  Avill  be:  “the  Bible  is  the  Bible  because 
it  is  tlie  Bible,  and  every  body  says  so.” 

33.  But  suppose,  what  is  impossible,  that  they  could  prove  the 
authenticil-y  of  the  Scriptures.  1  pass  to  a  second  ditiicuky,  which 
the  Private  Reasoner  cannot  meet  without  kivoking  tlie  authority  of 
the  Church,  What  we  call  the  Bible  is  a  book  made  up  of  common 
paper,  ink  and  binding,  which  might  have  been  employed  for  any 
other  literary  purpose.  What  is  revealed  in  it  is  the  sense  or  mean¬ 
ing  which  the  Holy  Spirit  intended  to  con^my.  This  sense  or  mean¬ 
ing  was  originally  committed  to  parchment  under  written  signs,  the 
exact  value  of  Avhich,  as  expressive  of  the  meaning,  Avas  liable  to  be 
misunderstood  by  the  reader.  Eighteen  hundred  years  have  passed 
since  these  signs  were  formed  in  the  autographs  of  the  original  Avri- 
ters.  It  has  been  necessary  to  copy  them  by  pens,  not  inspired, 
during  the  Avhole  period  of  fourteen  out  of  the  eighteen  centuries. 
But  not  only  has  it  been  necessary  to  transfer  them  ;  it  has  also  been 
necessary  to  copy  them  ;  it  has  also  been  necessary  to  transfer  the 
sense  from  the  signs  of  the  language  in  which  they  Avere  first- writ¬ 
ten  to  the  signs  employed  in  AAU-iting  other  more  modern  languages, 
and  in  these,  also,  to  reneAV  the  Avork  of  copying  Avith  the  hand. 
Can  an^  of  our  Private  Reasoners  prove,  Avithout  the  authority  of 
the  Church,  that  the  signs  have  not  been  altered  ?  that  the  text  has 
not  been  adulterated  by  interpolations  of  the  copyist  ?  that  the  sense 
has  not  been  changed  by  the  willful  or  accidental  addition  or  omission 
of  Avords  ?  On  their  principles  such  proof  is  utterly  impossible ; 
and  thus  they  necessarily  sap  the  foundation  of  their  own  religion  by 
depriving  the  written  Avord  of  God  of  those  outward  necessary 
attestations  of  its  inspiration,  its  authenticity  and  the  substantial 
integrity  of  its  text.  And  they  consider  themselves  friends  of  the 
Bible,  forsooth ! 

34.  But  passing  over  thw  also — for  among  Catholics  there  is  no 
doubt  on  either  of  these  points — Avhat  is  the  practical  condition  of 
the  Bible  in  the  hands  of  these  Private  Reasoners  ?  The  sacred  vob 
ume  is  like  all  other  written  documents,  a  silent  and  dumb  oracle 
until  it  is  brought  into  contact  with  the  living  intelligence  of  its 
reader.  He  puts  his  mind  into  communication,  so  to  speak,  with 
the  writer  of  the  sacred  page  through  the  medium  of  the  Avritten 
signs  by  Avhich  the  latter  intended  to  convey  his  meaning.  When 
he  misinterprets  the  signs,  the  writer  is  not  there  to  correct  his 
error.  The  Church,  indeed,  Avas  appointed  to  discharge  the  writer’s 
office  in  that  respect,  but  the  reader  is  a  Private  Reasoner,  and  Avill 
admit  no  help  from  the  Church.  If  he  says  that,  according  to  the 
Bible,  Christ  is  God,  the  Bible  speaks  not.  If  he  says  that  Christ  is 
not  God,  the  Bible  is  silent  still.  If  he  says  there  is  a  hell  for  im¬ 
penitent  sinners,  tlie  Bible  makes  no  reply.  If  he  says  that, 
according  to  the  Bible,  there  is  no  hell,  the  sacred  A'olume  itself  still 
remains  .as  mute  as  if  it  acquiesced  in  his  interpretation.  Noav  let 
him  take  any  of  these  interpretations.  Let  him  be  a  leader  among 


LETPEES  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHUECH. 


59S 


the  i‘rivate  Keasoners,  Let  him  preach  his  interpretation  with  all 
the  eloquence  of  whicli  human  language  may  be  made  the  vehicle, 
aiul  what  will  it  amount  to?  Not  to  what  the  Bible  says,  for  the 
Bible  has  no  power  of  utterance  to  say  any  thing,  but  his  preaching 
will  be  simply  his  own  private  opinion,  or,  in  other  words,  the  Bible 
having  no  living  voice  of  its  own,  he  puts  his  tongue  and  speech  into 
the  mouth  of  the  oracle,  aud  makes  it  seem  to  say  just  what  he 
wishes  to  express.  Here  is  the  fundamental  fallacy  of  the  whole 
system  of  Private  Reasoners.  There  is  necessarily  as  little  contra¬ 
diction  in  the  true  meaning  of  what  the  Bible  teadhes,  as  there  is  in 
the  living  teaching  of  the  Church,  or  in  God  himself,  who  is  the 
Author  of  both. 

35.  The  great  evil  of  this  system  is,  that  contradictions  of  the 
difterent  sects  into  which  the  Private  Reasoners  are  divided,  are 
charged  on  the  Bible  itself.  There  is  a  subtlety  in  their  first  princi¬ 
ple  which  allows  it  to  evade  detection  by  the  popular  mind.  The 
orthodox  blame  the  heterodox  for  holding  erroneous  doctrines,  but 
they  do  not  perceive  that  both  rest  on  the  same  foundation — private 
opinion,  and  that  this  private  opinion,  i’o  both  cases,  is  i^resented  to 
them  as  what  the  Bible  says.  The  consequence  is,  therefore,  that 
whereas  in  the  Cliurch  every  doctrine  is  held  and  belie\'ed  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  infallibly  true, 
the  same  doctrines  among  the  Private  Reasoners,  by  the  essential 
imture  of  tlie  process  through  which  they  arrive  at  their  religious 
belief,  are  reduced  to  the  basis  and  uncertainty  of  opinion.  Now 
God  has  revealed  no  opinions.  The  Bible  contains  no  opinions,  and 
yet,  on  the  principle  of  the  Private  Reasoners,  it  is  obvious  that  what 
is  called  religious  belief  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  any  thing  more  than 
opinion.  The  Rarionalists  of  Germany  have  pushed  this  principle  to 
some  of  its  frightful  consequences.  Their  more  timid  brethren  in 
this  country  are,  as  yet,  far  behind,  but  are  necessarily  moving  on 
in  the  same  direction.  But  the  end  is  not  yet. 


LETTER  IV. 

Deae  Readee : 

30.  In  what  I  have  said  in  my  last  letter,  you  must  not  under¬ 
stand  me  as  denying  that  there  are  many  things  in  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  which  private  reason  is  by  its  own  light  competent  to  un¬ 
derstand.  Our  Blessed  Saviour  condescended  to  appeal  to  it,  in 
certain  cases.  When  He  refuted  the  charge  made  against  Him,  of 
casting  out  devils  in  the  name  of  Beelzebub  ;  when  He  appealed  to 
the  knowledge  His  hearers  had  of  the  ancient  Scriptures,  respecting 
the  signs  of  His  coming  ;  when  He  directed  their  attention  to  His 
works,  as  bearing  testimony  to  Him,  the  appeal  was,  in  every  in¬ 
stall 'e,  to  their  private  reason.  You  jierceive,  hov/e\er,  that  in  all 
this,  He  addressed  persons  not  yet  aggregated  to  the  Society  of  Hia 


596 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


disciples ;  not  yet  fully  convinced  of  the  divinity  of  His  mission  and 
character.  But  in  revealing  those  doctrines  -which  He  communica¬ 
ted  to  His  disciples,  already  convinced  that  He  is  the  true  Teacher 
from  God,  there  is  not  a  solitary  instance  of  an  appeal  to  the  private 
reason  of  any  man.  We  have  a  remarkable  instance  of  this,  in 
the  case  of  the  seceders  at  Caphernaum.  The  Private  Fveasoners  found 
the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  a  hard  saying,  but  Christ  made 
not  a  single  remark  to  render  it  what  they  W'suld  call  more  rational. 
He  seemed  prepared  to  witness  the  departure  of  the  others,  as  ap¬ 
pears  by  the  question  He  put  to  them,  “  will  you  also  go  away  ?’^ 
Simon  Peter  answered  in  the  name  of  the  rest,  “  Lord,  to  whom  shall 
we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.”  Hore  then,  is  the 
first  striking  instance  of  the  difference  between  faith  and  opinion  ; 
beteen  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  those  whom  we  have  designated  a 
Private  Reasoner  on  the  doctrines  of  Revelation. 

37.  We  may  illustrate  the  principle  of  this  difference  by  analogies 
derived  from  the  exercises  of  ordinary  prudence,  in  the  concerns  of 
life ;  taking  care,  however,  to  remember  that  no  human  comparison 
will  be  a  complete  illustration.  If  a  man  is  sick,  he  will  use  the  best 
information  within  l-:is  reach,  and  the  best  light  of  his  private  rea¬ 
son,  in  selecting  a  good  physician.  But  when  he  has  found  him, 
he  will  not  subject  the  prescriptions  to  his  private  reason,  rejecting 
some  altogether,  taking  only  parts  of  others ;  and  so,  making  the 
doctor’s  science  subordinate  to  his  own  opinion.  In  like  manner, 
if  a  man  has  .an  important  suit  at  law,  he  will  exercise  Ins  private 
judgment  and  re.ason  in  soliciting  his  advocate ;  but  having  selected 
him,  he  will  act  under  his  advice,  and  be  guided  by  him.  Now  such 
comparisons  are  defective,  inasmuch  as  both  the  lawyer  and  the 
physician  are  fallible,  and  liable  to  be  mistaken ;  whereas  Christ, 
the  true  advocate,  and  true  physician,  is  essentially  infallible.  And 
you  perceive  accordingly,  th.at  in  the  system  of  religion  all  that 
goes  to  indicate  and  determine  His  cliaracter  when  He  was  on  the 
earth,  and  His  Church,  as  representing  Him,  after  Flis  ascension  into 
heaven,  comes  within  the  province  of  private  reason,  until  men  are 
brought  into  the  light  of  faith,  the  community  of  discipleship, 
and  the  unity  of  the  Church.  There  they  are  under  God’s  teach¬ 
ing  ;  there  they  learn  the  doctrines  which  Christ  revealed ;  there 
they  ascertain  what  are  the  true  Scriptures,  and  what  is  their  true 
meaning ;  there,  in  fine,  they  are  t-aught  in  the  language  of  our 
Saviour  himself,  “  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  He  had  com¬ 
manded”  the  Apostles,  under  the  promise  that  He  would  be  with  them, 
all  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world.  The  Church  has 
not  revealed  the  doctrines  ;  this  was  not  her  office.  She  was  and 
is  the  witness,  and  teacher,  extending  through  all  days,  filling  up 
the  whole  period  of  time  between  the  individual  believer,  and  the 
Divine  Author  of  Christianity.  She  bears  testimony  to  the  fact, 
that  such  and  such  doctrines  were  revealed  by  Him.  If  Private 
Reasoners  pervert  the  doctrine  by  erroneous  explanations  ;  she  bears 
testimony  to  the  true  meaning,  and  against  the  error.  Every  doctrine 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


697 


thus  proposed  as  a  matter  of  fact,  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ,  is  held 
by  lier  cliildren  as  infallibly  true.  This  is  Divine  faith,  because  the 
motive  of  it  is  the  veracity  of  God, 

38.  The  Private  Reasoners,  that  is,  persons  out  of  the  Church, 
profess  equally  to  found  their  belief  ®n  the  veracity  of  God. 
But  instead  of  appealing  to  the  Church,  as  the  witness  appointed 
by  God  to  attest  what  doctrines  Christ  revealed,  they  appeal  to 
their  own  private  opinion,  as  founded  on  what  seems  to  them  the 
g-ense  of  Scripture.  The  immediate  object  of  their  belief  is  their 
own  opinion.  They  seek  for  Divine  truth  within  themselves  ;  for  the 
Bible  has  no  meaning  for  them,  until  its  supposed  sense  is  ascer¬ 
tained  and  apjwoved  by  the  tribunal  within.  Hence,  although  every 
doctrine  revealed  by  our  Saviour  is  a  fact,  and  to  be  proved  by 
competent  testimony,  as  other  facts  are,  it  is  essentially  changed  by 
the  Private  Reasoners  into  an  opinion,  before  they  can  appropriate 
it  as  an  article  of  belief  in  their  own  minds.  In  the  abstract,  they 
profess  to  believe  in  Christ ;  they  profess  to  believe  what  He  taught. 
But  in  practice,  they  deny  any  competent  provision  for  determining 
w'hat  He  really  did  teach,  and  assume,  as  a  matter  of  opinion,  that 
every  one  must  “  search  the  Scriptures,”  guess  at  their  meaning,  and 
so  form  a  kind  of  religion  for  himself,  as  if  Christ  had  left  his  work 
a  blank,  as  to  all  certain  means  for  its  divine  attestation,  until  the 
Bible  should  fall  under  the  individual  perusal  and  interpretation  of 
each  separate  Private  Reasoner.  For  the  truth  of  this,  I  appeal,  dear 
reader,  to  your  own  expex'ience.  The  Private  Reasoners  tell  you 
to  read  the  Scriptures  and  judge  for  yourself.  iSlow,  as  a  test,  take 
the  text,  “I  and  my  Father  are  One,”  and  the  other  text,  “The 
Father  is  greater  than  I.”  Here  appears  to  be  a  contradiction, 
blow,  judging  for  yourself,  you  will  lean  to  one  or  the  other  of 
these  two  ;  and  when  vou  have  decided  in  favor  of  that  which  estab- 
lishen  the  Ptivine  equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  ;  or  in  favor  of 
the  other,  what  will  be  the  nature  of  the  conclusion  to  which  you 
will  come  in  your  own  mind  ?  Evidently  it  will  be  an  opinion,  and 
this  opinion  will  be  the  object  and  matter  of  your  belief. 

39.  If,  then,  according  to  this  mode  of  ascertaining  the  truths  of 
revelation,  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Christ  is  no  God,  what  is 
the  direct  thing  which  you  believe  ?  Something  that  Christ  has 
revealed  on  the  subject ?  No;  it  is  simply  your  own  opinion.  If, 
by  the  same  process,  you  arrive  at  the  opposite  conclusion,  what  is 
it  you  believe  ?  Your  own  opinion  again  !  But  in  neither  case  can 
you  say  that  you  believe  it  on  the  authority  of  God  revealing  it,  but 
simply  on  the  approval  of  your  own  private  reason.  Can  there  be, 
then,  such  a  thing  as  Divine  faith  among  believers  out  of  the 
Church  ?  Impossible  !  Now  every  Catholic  believes  in  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  as  a  positive  fiict  of  Divine  revelation.  And  why  does  he 
believe  ?  Because  God  has  reve.aled  it.  He  believes  it  therefore  on 
the  authority  of  God,  and  believing  it  on  God’s  authority,  he  holds 
it  as  a  matter  of  Divine  faith,  and  not  as  a  matter  of  opinion.  The 
l%ct  is^  proved  to  him  by  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  which  has 


598 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


always  believed  and  always  tanght  this  doctrine.  And  so  with 
re.gard  to  every  dogma  that  enters  into  the  deposit  of  Christ’s  reve¬ 
lation.  'VYlieii  one  of  the  Private  Peasoners  says  he  believes  in  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  he  cannot  consistently  say  that  he  does  so  became 
God  has  revealed  ii,  for  this  would  be  believing  it  as  a  fact  which,  as 
such,  must  necessarily  depend  on  outward  testimony  for  its  proof, 
but  he  must  believe  it  because  he  has  searched  the  Scriptures  for  him¬ 
self,  and  has  come  to  the  conclusion,  in  his  own  mind,  that  the  text 
wliich  says,  “  I  and  my  Father  are  One,”  ought  to  prevail  ovei*  the 
otlier  text  which  says,  “  The  Father  is  greater  than  I.”  In  other 
words,  he  believes  it  because  it  is  his  own  opinion. 

40.  Neither  is  it  of  any  use  to  say  that  God  speaks  to  us  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  statement  is  not  true.  It  is  one  of  those  piously 
fraudulent  phrases  which  the  Private  Reasoners  employ  to  impose 
on  the  simple-minded,  and  to  cover  the  delusiveness  of  their  own 
principle,  under  reverence  for  the  Divine  Book.  It  is  not  true  that 
the  Bible  has  been  given  to  us  for  the  purpose  to  wdiich  they  adapt 
it,  that  of  degrading  the  revelations  of  Christ  into  a  chaos  of  human 
opinions,  mutualn^  contradicting  each  other.  But  even  if  this  were 
true,  it  would  still  be  flillacious  to  say  that  God  speaks  to  us  in  the 
sacred  volume.  It  would  merely  be  true  that  he  writes  to  us  ;  and 
between  writing  to  us  and  speaking  to  us,  there  is  a  great  ditfei'ence. 
On  the  side  of  God  the  Scriptures  are  all  that  they  were  intended  to 
be — an  inspired  collection  of  historial  and  biograpliical  incidents 
connected  with  the  lives  of  our  blessed  Saviour  and  Ilis  Apostles, 
including,  however,  a  written  attestation  of  many,  if  not  all,  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  Divine  revelation.  In  so  far  as  doctrines  are  concerned, 
the  Scriptures  are  but  an  outward,  and  I  might  say,  a  duplicate 
form  of  the  living  faith  which  Christ  had  implanted,  as  the  life-pulse, 
in  the  heart  of  Ilis  Church  before  the  book  of  the  New  Testament 
had  been  committed  to  writing.  They  emanated  from  the  Church 
herself  The  authors  were  inspired  to  write,  but  the  manuscript 
was  intended  for  her  use,  to  be  preserved  as  a  part  of  her  taith  and 
teaching ;  and  under  the  light  of  the  spirit  of  truth,  which  she 
received  from  her  Founder,  to  be  perfectly  understood  and  infallibly 
expounded  by  her  alone.  It  is  manifest  that  if  God  had  authorized 
the  abus-8  which  the  Private  Reasoners  make  of  his  written  word, 
lie  would  have  authorized  thereby  the  overthrow  of  what  is  most 
valuable  in  the  teachings  of  our  Divine  Redeemer,  viz. ;  their  intrinsic 
infallibility,  and  the  certainty  of  the  faith  wdiich  that  infallibility 
insjvres.  lie  would  have  been  allowdng  Ilis  Divine  Son  to  lay  the 
everlasting  foundations  of  his  Chui'ch,  to  authorize  Ilis  Apostles  to 
build  it  up,  wdiilst  He  wmuld  be  .at  the  same  time  authorizing  others, 
by  private  reasonings  on  the  Scriptures,  to  pull  dowm  the  editice, 
remodel  its  form,  and  reconstruct  it  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  private  opinion.  lie  wmuld  be  authorizing  some  to  preach 
that  Christ  is  God,  and  others,  that  Christ  is  not  God  ;  some,  that 
bishops  are  of  Divine  institution — others,  that  they  are  not ;  some, 
that  there  is  a  hell — others,  that  there  is  not,  and  so  on  thi'ough  all 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


599 


the  mnltitndinous  errors  of  sects  into  which  the  Private  Reasoners 
are  divided. 

41.  If  God  had  appointed  the  Scri])tures  to  he  the  guide  of  the 
human  mind,  through  the  medium  of  private  interpretation,  He 
would  liave  provided  the  reader  with  a  measure  of  Divine  inspira¬ 
tion  corresponding  with  that  of  the  writer.  But  although  they  w'ere 
thus  written,  they  are  not  thus  read,  and  among  all  the  schools 
which  have  grown  out  of  the  principle  of  private  reasoning,  there  is 
not  one  whose  system  provides  for  this  moral  deficiency,  except  that 
of  the  Society  of  Friends.  They  assume  that  God  wiil  give  His 
Holy  Spirit  to  open  the  interior  eye  of  the  true  meaning  of  inspired 
written  Word.  This  idea  also  nrevailed  amoim  sojne  of  the  earlier 
Private  Keasoners  of  other  denominations,  and  is  still  clung  to  by  in¬ 
dividuals  of  a  more  pious  or  enthusiastic  tem])erament.  But  its  fal¬ 
lacy  is  pal}iable  from  the  tact,  that  the  interpretations  arrived  at, 
through  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  reader,  would  be  uniform  ;  whereas 
their  interpretations  are  as  diversified  and-  contradictory  as  the  In¬ 
dividual  oi)inions  on  which  they  are  founded.  I  have  dwelt  on  this 
subject  longer  than  may  have  seemed  to  you  necessary.  But  I  deem 
it  important  tliat  I  should  do  so,  in  order  to  give  you  a  clear  and 
distinct  idea  of  the  difference  between  authority  and  reason — be¬ 
tween  faith  and  opinion — ^between  the  Church  of  God  and  the  Pri¬ 
vate  Keasoners  who  are  now,  or  have  been  at  any  time,  separate 
from  her  Communion.  This  distinction  is  a  Divine  line  between  the 
truth  of  Ciirist  and  the  heresies  that  have  opposed  it,  from  the  days 
of  the  Apostles.  The  Church  comes  down  to  us  through  the  suc¬ 
cession  of  intermediate  generations,  continuously,  as  one  and  the 
same  society — the  successors  of  the  other  Apostles,  succeeding  un¬ 
der  the  title  of  bishops,  surrounding  as  tl:eir  common  centre,  and 
revering  as  their  common  visible  head,  the  successor  of  Peter,  on 
whom  the  Chureh  was  built ;  around  the  bishops  the  clergy  of  the 
second  order,  with  tiie  faithful  people,  teaching  and  believing  per¬ 
petually,  unanimously,  and  universally  the  same  truths  down  to  the 
present  day.  Coeval  with  the  commencement  of  the  Church  you 
find  the  Private  Keasoners,  in  the  seceders  of  Capheniaum,  and  then, 
following  the  stream  of  time  downwards,  you  find  their  successor’s 
in  Cerintiuis  and  Ebion,  Marcio-n,  Arius,  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  Pela- 
gius,  Berengarius  (for  a  time),  Wycldiffe,  Huss,  Luther,  Calvin, 
Bucer,  Cranmer-,  Knox,  Socinus,  Wesley,  Swedenbourg,  Joanna 
Soutiieote,  IMother  Ann  Lee,  Joe  Smith,  Father  Miller,  and  Kir  wan. 

42.  In  this  enumei’atioii,  dear  reader.  I  do  mean  to  say  tint  the 
several  errors  into  which  private  reasoning  has  betrayed  the  ditferent 
persons  whose  names  are  mentioned,  were  of  equal  enormity,  or  of 
equal  estrangement  from  the  truth.  They  all  agreed  in  two  things, 
and  it  is  by  their  agreement  only  that  1  classify  them  in  the  same 
catalogue,  and  in  asserting  the  right  of  private  reason  to  determine 
the  meaning  of  what  is  written  in  the  Scriptures.  Their  systems 
of  doctrine  were  mutually  opposed  and  repugnant  to  each  other — 
the  errors  of  some  were  far  more  enormous  than  those  of  others, 


600 


AECIIBISIIOP  HUGHES. 


all  of  them  contained  some  truth,  and  even  much  precious  trutli,  but 
truth  unfortunately  transferred  from  the  basis  of  revelation  as  a 
fact  to  that  of  th'e'ir  opinion  ;  and  by  a  singular  law  which  pursues 
the  Avork  of  Private  Keasoners  through  all  the  wanderings  of  their 
errors,  the  school  {that  of  Socinus,  for  instance,)  which  has  most 
consistency  with  their  common  principle,  has  the  smallest  residuum 
of  truth  ;  Avhilst,  on  the  other  hand,  the  school  (that  of  Cranmer, 
let  us  say,)  Avhich  has  the  maximum  of  truth,  out  of  the  Church,  jdos- 
sesses  but  the  minimum  of  consistency  with  the  same  organic  prin¬ 
ciple,  viz.,  the  right  of  private  reason  as  interpreter  of  the  Holy 
Scrijjtu-res.  In  my  last  letter,  I  set  forth  the  parties  to  any  con'„ro- 
versies  which  now  exists,  or  by  possibility  can  exist,  between  the 
Church  and  her  opponents.  In  this,  you  see  clearly  stated  the  na- 
tui-e  of  the  sulycct,  or  the  matter  in  controversy  between  those  par¬ 
ties.  You  perceive,  manifestly,  that  the  Church  adheres  to  her  Divine 
warranty,  to  her  doctrines,  as  facts  of  revelation,  Avhich  are  not  to  be 
disputed  by  men  Avho  believe  in  the  Author  of  Christianity,  and  who 
admit  the  authority  of  moral  evidence.  The  Private  Reasoners,  on 
the  other  hand,  cling  to  their  own  interpretations,  and  oppose  to  her 
their  own  opinions,  with  every  display  of  Scripture  misunderstood, 
of  texts  distorted,  by  the  various  obliquity  of  the  several  interpre¬ 
ters.  What,  then,  is  the  nature  of  an  objection  to  the  Catholic 
Church  on  any  one  doctrine  of  revelation  ?  It  is  necessarily  an 
opinion  opposed  to  a  fact.  The  matter,  therefore,  involved  between 
these  parties  is  positive  fact  on  the  Cathalic  side  ;  positive  opinion 
on  the  side  of  the  Private  Peasoners. 

43.  Another  consequence  follows.  Among  the  Private  Reasoners 
there  are  churches,  so-called.  On  what  are  they  founded  1  Evi¬ 
dently  on  the  simple  opinions  of  their  respective  founders.  The 
concurrence  of  other  opinions  with  that  of  the  founder,  cannot,  by 
any  means,  strengthen  the  foundation  of  the  pretended  Church, 
although  it  may  have  tended  to  give  plausibility  to  the  delusion,  and 
increase  the  members  of  the  neAV  association.  Yet,  even  experience 
has  proved  the  vanity  of  attempting  to  build  an  ecclesiastical  edifice 
on  such  a  sandy  basis.  Now  it  gives  Avay  at  one  angle,  and  now 
at  an  other.  Aiid,  at  the  present  day,  there  is  scarcely  one  of  these 
human  constructions  that  is  not  rent  in  twain,  like  the  veil  of  the 
Jewish  Temjde,  under  God’s  displeasure  at  the  incredulity  of  the 
people,  when  His  only  begotten  Son  was  in  agony  for  their  redemp¬ 
tion.  It  Avas  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  principle,  Avhich  might 
have  been  seen  a  priori.,  and  which  experience  has  fully  established, 
that  no  amount  of  civil  poAver,  on  the  part  of  apostate  rulers  of 
this  world  ;  no  amount  of  learning  on  the  part  of  those  architects 
who  planned  the  edifice,  could  give  stability  to  the  superstructure  ; 
no  accession  of  ncAv  members  could  give  strength  or  security,  so 
long  as  the  original  foundations  rested  on  the  opinions  of  the 
Private  Reasoners,  who  first  separated  from  God’s  Church.*  There 
is  an  “  original  sin”  in  the  very  first  principle  of  the  Private  Rea- 
Boners,  Avhich  taints  and  vitiates  all  its  consequences.  Has  any  one 


LETTERS  OX  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


601 


of  these  scliools,  'which  have  grown  out  of  it ;  a  moral  certainty, 
such  as  reasonable  beings  require,  as  to  any  one  Christian  institution 
connected  with  it  ?  I  speak  not  now  of  its  preaching,  for  the 
preacher  himself  does  not  profess  to  give  out  from  the  sacred  desk 
any  thing  moi'e  than  his  own  opinions.  But  I  speak  of  those  in¬ 
stitutions  which,  although  cut  down  and  mutilated,  are  still  supposed 
to  have  been  appointed  of  Christ — have  they  any  valid  sacraments  ? 
ha’s  e  they  any  true  ministry  ?  have  they  any  one  of  the  Divine 
institutions  wliich  the  Saviour  of  the  world  appointed  as  meajis  of 
grace — channels  tlirough  which  Ilis  infinite  love  of  mankind,  would 
convey  the  merits  of  His  death  and  passion,  to  the  soul  of  the  mdi- 
vidual,  who  should  most  desire,  or  stand  most  in  need  of  it  ?  On 
their  own  principles,  all  this  is  doubtful,  since  all  this  is  founded  on 
opinion,  and  since  opinion  necessarily  implies  doubt,  or,  at  least,  does 
not  exclude  it. 

4-i.  The  objections,  therefore,  which  we  have  to  answer  in  repel¬ 
ling  the  opposition  of  the  Private  Reasoners,  are  simply  the  objec¬ 
tions  of  opinion.  And  as  opinion  varies  from  one  individual  to  an¬ 
other,  and  oftentimes  in  the  same  individual,  it  is  impossible  to  write 
so  as  to  meet  the  specific  form  in  which  these  ever  changing,  incon¬ 
stant,  capricious,  and  oftentimes  contradictory  conclusions  are  pre¬ 
sented.  The  Church  has  had  but  one  method  from  the  beginning, 
and  that  is,  to  establish  and  declare  the  fact  against  which  the  opin¬ 
ion  of  the  Private  Reasoner  had  been  arrayed.  Now,  it  is  a  fact, 
which  i  will  mention  by  way  of  illustration,  that  about  the  middle 
of  the  Seventeenth  Century,  Charles  I  of  England  was  executed, 
and  the  mode  of  his  execution  was  by  ha\'ing  his  head  cut  ofl’  on  the 
block.  Supposing  our  Private  Reasoners  were  to  fill  volumes  in  in¬ 
tending  to  prove  thereby,  either  that  the  monarch  was  not  executed, 
or  that  he  was  executed  by  shooting  or  hanging,  would  it  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  refute  all  the  silly  opinions  contained  in  those  books  in  order 
to  establish  the  certainty  that  he  was  beheaded,  and  in  this  manner 
put  to  death  ?  Certainly  not !  It  would  be  quite  sufiicient,  for  all 
reasonable  ])eople,  to  ])rove  the  fact,  and  the  proof  of  the  fact  would 
be  the  refutation  of  all  opinions  against  it.  Now,  in  a  similar  man¬ 
ner  1  shall  proceed  in  these  letters.  I  shall  endeavor  to  establish 
the  facts  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  several  doctrines  wliich  she 
teaches  as  revelations  from  God.  And  just  as  the  people  of  Eng¬ 
land  are  competent  witnesses,  according  to  the  laws  of  moral  evi¬ 
dence,  of  an  event  which  concerned  them,  and  which  occurred  two 
hundred  years  ago,  so  shall  the  testimony,  not  only  of  one  nation, 
but  of  all  Christendom,  attest  and  establish  the  facts  of  the  Catho¬ 
lic  Church  and  the  Catholic  doctrine.  This  furnishes  a  sufiicient 
reason  why  I  do  not  take  any  direct  notice  of  the  trash  which  has 
lately  been  addressed  to  me,  under  the  title  of  “  Letters,”  in  a  pub¬ 
lic  newspaper.  The  opinions  of  the  writer  are  all  that  they  express, 
and  certainly  the  man  who  would  undertake  to  refute  or  correct  all 
the  foolish  oiiinions  that  are  abroad  on  religious,  as  well  as  on  other  - 
matters,  would  undertake  a  ^•ery  absurd  task.  I  do  not  say  that  a 


602 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


lespectable  writer,  out  of  tlie  Church,  might  not  ])resent  his  opinions 
in  that  measure  of  apparently  good  fiiith,  that  dignity  of  style  and  senti¬ 
ment,  that  moderation  of  tone  and  manner,  which  should  entitle  them 
to  he  respectfully  noticed.  But  there  is  nothing  of  this  kind  to  recom¬ 
mend  the  letters  just  alluded  to.  No  doubt,  every  man  so  disposed  can 
bring  together  scandals  from  every  age  of  the  Christian  Church,  be¬ 
ginning  with  the  avarice  and  treachery  of  Judas.  It  is  the  easiest 
thing  in  the  world  to  find  materials  to  work  up  into  a  pamphlet  of 
reproitch  upon  the  social  and  moral  character  of  any  community  ; 
and  yet  the  publication  of  the  police  reports  of  New  York  would 
give  but  a  false  idea  of  the  virtues  that  still  subsist  in  this  commu¬ 
nity,  but  which  iind  no  place  on  such  register.  Yet  it  is,  I  fear,  in 
such  a  spirit  that  the  author  of  the  letters  to  me  was  induced  to  launch 
bis  shallow  bark  on  the  ocean  of  ecclesiastical  history  ;  and  with  the 
peculiar  industry  of  persons  like  himself,  Avho  have  given  up  Divine 
faith  for  human  opinion,  to  collect  the  scum  which  floats  upon  its 
surface,  and  distribute  it  through  the  newspapers  to  the  admirers  of 
such  commodity.  It  is  but  a  poor  compliment  to  the  boasted  pro¬ 
gress  of  our  age,  to  discover  that  it  has  founded  such  appreciation. 


LETTER  V. 

Dear  Reader  : 

45.  From  what  has  been  said,  you  perceive  the  difference  between 
the  condition  of  those  who  are  within  the  Church,  and  that  of  the 
Pilvate  Reasoners,  who  are  beyond  the  pale  of  her  communion.  On 
the  one  side,  there  is  faith  ;  on  the  other  side,  there  are  opinions. 
The  Private  Reasoners  have  destroyed  the  essential  basis  on  Avhich 
alone  faith  could  rest  securely.  They  do  not  deny  the  revelation  it¬ 
self,  but  they  reject  the  only  testimony  by  which  its  contents  may 
be  identified  and  discerned  ;  and  instead  of  appealing  to  competent 
witnesses,  such  as  Christ  had  appointed  in  the  organization  of  His 
Church,  they  appeal  to  their  own  private  speculations.  You  need 
not  be  surju-ised,  then,  at  the  errors  and  contradictions  respect¬ 
ing  revelation  into  which  they  have  fallen.  In  those  States  in  which 
tile  sovereign  espoused  their  principle,  the  civil  government  has 
taken  into  its  own  hands,  by  sacrilegious  usurpation,  the  power 
which  lawfully  belonged  to  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  of 
Peter,  by  the  appointment  of  our  Saviour.  Thus  in  England,  Prus¬ 
sia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden,  not  to  speak  of  other  States,  the  secular 
authority  determines  and  enforces  what  the  Private  Reasoners  shall 
believe,  or  at  least  profess.  The  rules  of  the  Government  in  Eng- 
land  were  made  less  stringent  than  in  the  other  States,  and  accord¬ 
ingly  England  has  swarmed  with  all  kinds  of  sects,  schisms,  and 
heresies.  The  same  is  the  case  in  this  country,  Avhere  there  is  no  re¬ 
straint  at  all.  A  large  number,  perhaps  a  majority,  of  those  Avhc 
have  inherited  the  birth-right  of  reasoning  out  their  doctrines  of 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


605 


Clirist,  by  reading  the  Bible  and  judging  for  themselves,  have  no 
fixed  ideas  of  religion  whatever.  Those  of  them,  on  the  other  hand, 
M’ho  profess  some  formulary  of  creeds,  and  confessions  of  faith, 
either  elfeiu'esce  into  fanaticism,  so  as  to  drive  out  sober-mind  peo¬ 
ple,  or  else  sink  into  inditference,  so  as  to  tolerate  the  most  glaring 
contradictions,  as  the  only  way  to  escape  disputes  which,  as  they 
have  no  certain  method  of  determining  truth  from  error  by  the  pro¬ 
cess  of  private  reasoning,  generally  end  in  a  split,  producing  two  sects 
instead  of  one. 

46.  In  the  Catholic  Church  the  process  is  that  which  the  Saviour 

appointed,  that  which  the  Apostles  taught  and  practiced,  that  Avhich 
their  successors  through  all  ages,  and  in  all  nations,  have  never 
ceased  to  inculcate  and  employ.  If  you  would  desire  to  be  in¬ 
structed  in  the  fullness  of  Christ’s  revelation,  if  you  would  desire 
to  be  made  partaker  of  the  riches  of  His  grace,  and  of  the  merit!5 
of  Ilis  redemption,  you  have  only  to  seek  admission,  and  to  become 
a  member  in  the  discipleship  of  Christ  by  communion  with  His 
Church.  She  is  spread  throughout  the  world ;  and  you  have  but  to 
apply  to  the  nearest  of  her  priests  or  bishops,  to  learn  from  him 
what  is  her  doctrine.  He  will  not,  in  his  reply,  give  you  hia  opinion, 
but  he  will  give  you  the  attestation  of  her  belief  a*s  received  from 
Christ  and  His  Apostles,  and  as  held  during  eighteen  hundred  years. 
You  may  consult  other  priests  and  other  bishops  ;  and  on  these 
points  of  revelation  you  will  find  no  doubt,  no  discrepancy,  but  all 
■will  speak  as  with  the  same  voice,  and  give  you  the  same  reply  ;  so 
that,  in  the  attestations  of  the  individual  Catholic  pastor,  yon  have 
the  universal  attestation  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church  ;  the  same  as 
if  its  two  hundred  millions  of  witnesses  stood  by,  saying,  “Yes,  that 
is  the  faith  which  we  have  all  received,  which  we  believe  and 
teach.”  ■’ 

47.  If  you  had  lived  in  the  Fifteenth,  or  in  the  Seventh,  or  in  the 
Third  Century  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  desired  to  know  what 
Christ  had  revealed,  on  similar  inquiry  you  would  have  found  a  corre¬ 
sponding  process  and  answer.  I  do  not  say  that  you  would  have  found 
the  Catholic  faith,  in  the  Seventh  or  in  the  Third  Century,  presented 
in  the  same  written  form  of  attestation  which  it  received  at  the 
Council  of  Trent.  I  speak  of  it  as  to  its  substance,  and  not  its  form  ; 
I  speak  of  it  as  the  living  consciousness  whicli,  at  all  periods,  sub¬ 
sists  most  intimately  and  most  perfectly  in  the  Cluirch  herself.  But 
the  reason  of  this  formal  difterence  is  tliat  the  form  in  which  her 
doctrine  is  presented,  from  one  age  to  another,  is  more  or  less  de¬ 
termined  by  the  nature  of  the  peculiar  errors,  which  the  Private 
Reasoners  have  brought  out  at  dilferent  times  to  o])pose,  or  vitiate, 
the  truths  which  she  had  received  from  her  Divine  Founder,  of 
which  she  was  charged  by  Him  to  be  the  guardian,  the  witness,  and 
the  channel  of  communication  to  generations  and  generations  of  our 
fallen  race,  then  and  still  unboim.  A  revelation  had  been  made  by 
external  means,  and,  so  to  express  it,  in  a  human  manner  best  suited 
to  the  conditions  of  our  nature,  as  composed  of  a  soul  and  a  body. 


604 


AECHBISIIO?  HUGHES. 


Onr  Divine  Saviour  employed  the  human  voice  as  Man,  to  commu¬ 
nicate  through  the  sense  of  hearing  the  knowledge  of  llis  Divine 
doctrine.  Ilis  miracles,  too,  fell  under  the  cognizance  of  the  senses. 
The  manner  of  Ilis  life,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  were  not 
exceptions  to  this  law.  When  He  departed,  those  to  whom  His 
Apostles  carried  the  message  of  Plis  revelation  had  to  depend  on  the 
intermediate  authority  of  those  witnesses  appointed  by  Him.  But  as 
they  were  sent  forth  to  I'epresent  their  Divine  Lord  in  carrying  on  His 
work.  He  armed  them  with  the  credentials  necessary  to  confirm  their 
statement,  by  the  power  of  miracles,  which  they  also  performed. 

48.  To  the  unconverted  they  had  to  preach  a  new  doctrine,  on  the 
part  of  Christ  and  of  God.  The  principal  question,  then,  was 
whether  God  had  sent  them.  This  they  proved,  as  their  Divine 
Master  had  proved  to  them  His  mission,  by  miracles.  The  wit- 

^nesscs  of  either  were  as  competent  to  testify  to  their  miracles,  as 
they  were  to  testify  to  any  other  public  occurrence  depending  on  the 
evidence  of  the  senses.  It  is  remarkable  that  Christ  gave  an  effi¬ 
cacy  to  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  more  striking  than  had  ever 
been  manifest  in  His  own,  when  they,  after  having  received  the  Holy 
Spirit,  also  through  an  outw’ard  and  visible  medium  preached  in 
Jerusalem,  we  read  of  three  thousand  at  one  time,  and  five  thousand 
at  another,  who  immediately  renounced  the  fallen  synagogue  and 
joined  their  communion.  They  appointed  and  associated  with  them¬ 
selves  new  Apostles.  Mathias  was  designated  in  place  of  the 
traitor  Judas;  Paul,  after  his  miraculous  conversion,  is  associated; 
Timothy  and  Titus,  and  others,  are  mentioned  as  new  links  in  the 
Apostolic  chain.  In  the  mean  time  the  faith  is  radiating  and  extend¬ 
ing  to  larger  and  larger  circles,  with  the  increase  of  new  adherents 
to  the  new  society ;  and  the  Church  had  already  extended  to  the 
cask  and  west — had  penetrated  many  of  the  Roman  provinces,  and 
become  known  in  the  Imperial  Capital  itself  before  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament  were  written.  Since  they  recorded  several 
of  the  things  of  which  we  are  speaking,  and  since  such  events  must 
have  preceded  the  writing  in  which  they  are  recorded. 

49.  Thus,  truth  of  revelation,  proved  by  the  testimony  of  God 
him-seif,  in  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  became  the 
foundation  of  the  Church  ;  the  very  life  and  consciousness  of  her 
being.  The  doctrines  which  they  have  received  were  facts,  since 
they  had  been  revealed.  And  these,  once  establised  by  miracles, 
and  once  become  a  species  of  Divine  Incarnation  of  the  Word 
of  God,  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  were  to  be  sought  and  re¬ 
ceived,  exclusively,  from  her  authorized  testimony  and  teaching.  In 
her  alone  they  had  existence.  She  alone  had  received  them  from 
Christ.  And  although,  composed  of  mortal  beings,  her  members 
and  pastors  were  subject  to  the  laws  of  our  common  mortality, 
yet,  as  an  external,  visible  society,  organized  on  the  plan  of  our 
Redeemer,  her  moral  identity  is  instruction  ;  whilst  the  spirit  of 
truth,  divinely  given,  constitutes  her  inward  and  immortal  life.  She 
is  the  same  witness  to-day,  and  the  same  teacher,  of  tjje  same  truths 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHtJRCH. 


605 


that  she  lias  heen  from  the  commencement.  The  only  difference  is 
that  the  formal  mode  of  presenting  her  doctrines  had  been  more  or 
less'  determined,  from  age  to  age,  by  the  special  character  of  the 
several  heresies  which  it  was  a  part  of  her  duty  to  condemn  and 
repel.  Thus,  if  the  errors  brouglit  fortli  by  the  Private  Reasoners 
of  the  Sixteenth  Century  had  been  proclaimed  by  Arius  and  his  ad- 
hei’onts  in  the  Fourth,  the  form  of  her  doctrines,  suited  to  preserve 
ami  maintain  the  deposit  of  faith  committed  to  her  by  Christ,  would 
have  been  substantially  the  same,  emanating  from  the  Council  of 
Nice,  as  from  the  Council  of  Trent. 

50.  Now,  it  is  manifest  that,  if  Christ  .appointed  a  Church  to  pre¬ 
serve  and  communicate  His  revelation,  that  Church  must  be  infalli¬ 
ble.  That  He  commanded  His  Church  to  teach  all  nations  is  un¬ 
deniable.  The  precept  is,  indeed,  addressed  to  the  Apostleship  of 
the  Church,  but  out  of  the  communion  of  that  primitive,  united, 
and  universal  Society,  which  we  call  the  Church  there  is  not,  and 
cannot  be,  any  true  Apostleship.  Reasonable  evidence  for  proving 
the  Divine  mission  of  those  to  whom  the  command  of  our  Lord 
was  addressed,  being  once  furnished,  the  obligation,  on  the  part  of 
those  to  whom  they  were  sent,  of  being  instructed  in  the  Christian 
faith;  in  other  words,  of  being  taught  by  those  who  wore  appointed 
teachers  for  them,  is  a  necessary  conseo^uence.  So  that,  whoever 
would  know  all  things,  “  whatsover  Christ  had  commanded  them,” 
is  bound  by  the  ackuowleded  precept  to  seek  the  Apostleship,  and 
learn  the  things  of  revelation  from  those  whom  Christ  had  appointed 
teachers  thereof,  in  His  own  stead.  This  is  the  principle  of  the  in¬ 
fallibility  of  the  Church.  He  has  commissioned  her  to  go  to  all  those 
who  were  not  present,  Avhen  He  spoke  Himself  to  carry  and  convey 
His  teaching,  declaring  that  He  would  be  with  them  all  days,  even 
till  the  consummation  of  the  world.  C.atholics,  therefore,  do  but 
honor  Christ  in  recognizing  the  infallibility  of  His  Church.  It  is 
not  for  the  exaltation  of  her  ministry,  but  for  the  good  of  her  mem¬ 
bers,  for  the  security  of  all,  that  He  invested  her.  with  this  essential 
of  His  own  nature.  In  fact,  it  is  the  infallibility  of  Christ  which  con¬ 
stitutes  the  in-errancy  of  the  Church. 

51.  This  she  herself  has  ever  attested  as  a  fiict.  It  is  a  portion 
of  her  doctrine.  This  she  has  never  ceased  to  attest.  It  was  but  in 
the  exercise  of  this  prerogative  that  she  would  have  dared  to  con¬ 
demn  the  heresies  that  sprang  up  in  the  Appstolic  age,  or  in  any  of 
the  ages  that  have  since  intervened.  The  unity  of  her  doctrine, 
its  universal  extension,  the  deep  and  religious  reverence  for  the 
authority  which  she  exercises,  are  but  consequences  of  it.  It 
is  attested  by  every  decision  of  hers,  determining  the  difference  be¬ 
tween  the  original  deposit  of  revealed  truth,  and  tlie  human  0})iuions 
which  unfaithful  men  have  from  time  to  time,  put  forth  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  her  teaching.  It  is  attested  by  the  advocates  of  all  here¬ 
sies  that  have  ever  opposed  her — in  the  only  way  in  which  heretics 
could  afford  such  testimony.  Whenever  she  condemned  their  errors, 
then  they  discovered  that  she  Avas  not  only  a  fallible  but  a  fallen 


606 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Church;  but  not  before.  They  invariably,  as  soon  as  they  weie 
numerous  enough,  arrogated  to  tliemselves  her  authority,  and  at¬ 
tempted  to  play  (he  Church  of  God,  by  enacting  and  enforcing  laws 
of  .an  ecclesiastical  character,  with  a  tyranny  over  their  own  mendjers, 
unparalleled  in  her  annals.  They  could  not  rise  to  her  eminence, 
but  they  would  drag  her  down  to  their  own  level ;  by  denying  her 
that  infallibility,  which  they  might  not  dare  to  claim  for  themselves. 
In  every  page  of  the  early  Christian  writers  which  illustrates  her 
doctrines,  her  infallibility  is  supposed  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  be¬ 
yond  the  reach  of  cavil.  It  Avould  not  be  consistent  with  my  pur¬ 
pose  in  these  letters  to  nuiltiply  extracts  from  their  writings,  to 
prove  the  truth  of  what  I  h.ave  just  stated.  But  I  shall  make  it 
convenient  to  do  so,  if  any  one  of  our  Priv.ate  Reasoners  profess¬ 
ing  to  be  acquainted  with  the  early  Avritings  of  Christian  authors, 
sh.a]l  deny  what  h.as  just  been  s.aid. 

52.  But  in  truth,  dear  re.ader,  there  are  some  among  these  Pri¬ 
vate  Re.asoners  so  blindly  prejudiced  against  the  medium  through 
which  Our  Saviour  would  have  us  to  be  instructed  and  s.anctified, 
that  they  would  sooner  reject  revelation  itself,  than  receRe  it 
through  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church.  For  them  it  would 
be  of  no  use  to  quote  the  admirable  testimony  of  the  Augustines, 
the  Ambroses,  the  Cyrils,  the  Gregories,  the  Basils,  and  the  Chry¬ 
sostoms,  of  the  earlier  ages  of  the  Church.  These  illustrations  and 
saintly  writings  attest  the  facts  of  religion  in  their  time,  and  in  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  Church,  their  language  is  stronger  than  Catholics  in 
our  day  are  accustomed  to  on  the  s<ame  subject.  But  our  Private 
Reasoners  do  not  wish  facts,  opinions  .are  sufficient  for  them,  and 
their  OAvn  opinions  especially,  .are  highest  in  their  estimation.  Their 
opinions  have  decided  that  the  Church  is  fallible-  If  any  thing  could 
be  found  in  the  early  writers  going  to  •corroborate  this  view,  that 
would  suit  them ;  but  facts,  such  as  found  in  the  p.ages  of  those 
authors  are  fatal  to  their  position.  Yet  it  is  surprising  to  me  that 
professing  belief  in  Christianity,  they  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  an 
unerring  authority,  even  by  the  light  of  priv.ate  reason  ;  that  they  do 
not  see  the  fact  of  its  institution  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Wh.at 
could  Our  Saviour  h.ave  meant  Avhen  he  said  to  his  Apostles, 
“  Go  ye  into  the  whole  world  and  pi-each  the  Gospel  to  CAmry  crea 
ture  ?”  Mark  xvi.  15.  What  could  lie  have  meajit  Avhen  He  said, 
“  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me  ;  and  he  that  despiseth  you,  de- 
spiseth  me  ;  and  he  that  despiseth  me,  despiseth  him  th.at  sent  mo  ?” 
Luke  X.  16.  Wh.at  could  He  have  meant  Avhen  He  said,  “And  I  Avill 
ask  the  Father,  and  he  .shall  give  you  another  Paraclete,  th.at  he 
may  abide  Avith  you  forever,  the  Spirit  of  Truth  Avhom  the  Avorld 
c.annot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not,  nor  knoAveth  him  ;  but 
you  shall  know  him,  because  he  shall  abide  Avitli  you,  and  shall  be 
in  you?”  John  xiv.  16,  17.  What  could  He  have  me.ant  Avhen  He 
s.aid,  “But  Avhen  he,  the  Spirit  of  Trutli  is  come,  he  will  teach  you 
all  truth  ;  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself ;  but  Avhat  things 
soever  he  shall  hear,  he  shall  speak  ;  and  the  things  that  are  to  come, 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


607 


he  ■will  shoiv  you?”  John  xvi.  13.  What  could  lie  have  meant 
■when  lie  said,  “  All  power  is  given  to  me  in  lieaven  and  in  earth. 
Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Fathei’,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you;  and,  be¬ 
hold,  I  am  with  yon  all  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world?” 
Mattheiv  xxviii.  18,  20.  What  could  He  have  meant,  when  He  said, 
“  And  if  he  v/ill  not  hear  them,  tell  the  Church.  And  if  he  will  not 
hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  to  thee  as  the  heathen  and  the  publican  ?” 
Miitthew  xviii.  17.  What  could  the  inspired  Avriter  have  meant,  or 
rather  the  A])ostles  assembled  in  council,  Avhen  they  said,  “  It  hath 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lay  no  further  burden 
upon  you  than  these  necessary  things  ?”  Acts  xv.  23.  And  again,  in 
the  forty-first  verse,  “And  he  (Paul)  Avent  through  Syria  and  C.'ilicia, 
confirming  the  churches  ;  commanding  them  to  keep  the  precepts  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  ancients  ?” 

53.  I  might  multiply  passages  of  this  hind  from  the  pages  of  the 
inspired  Avritings.  But  it  is  useless  addressing  the  PrHate  Reason- 
ers  Avith  such  questions,  inviting  them  to  giA^e  out  their  oj>inions,  in¬ 
stead  of  the  meaning  which  I  ask  for.  You,  at  least,  dear  reader, 
belieA'ing  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  aatII  understand  the  importance  of 
the  true  meaning  of  these  several  passages.  Before  they  Avere  Avrit- 
ten,  the  Church  Avas  in  possession  of  the  Divine  prerogative  Avhich 
they  ex])ress  and  testify.  Whether  the  words  had  been  put  on 
record  or  not,  she  Avould  haA^e  been  equally  in  possession  of  that  pre¬ 
rogative,  namely,  the  vicarious  authority  to  teach  unerringly,  uni¬ 
versally,  perpetually,  until  the  end  of  the  Avorld,  the  doctrines  of 
Christ.  She  did  not  receAe  this  prerogative  becavse  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  records  some  portion,  at  least,  of  the  terms  in  which  Our  Lord 
has  expressed  and  conveyed  it,  but  because  it  had  been  so  expressed 
.and'so  conveyed  before  it  Avas  recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  But  I 
ask  you,  being  out  of  the  Communion  of  the  Church,  Avhat,  in  your 
o])inion — for  unfortunately  you  haA’e  nothing  else  to  appeal  to — do 
these  passages  mean  ?  If  you  are  not  satisfied  Avith  your  OAvn  opin¬ 
ion,  elicit  tiiat  of  your  neighbors.  Ask  the  learned  in"  theology 
among  the  Pri\  ate  Reasoners  Avhat  is  the  meaning  of  these  passages, 
if  it  be  not  to  invest  the  official  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion 
Avith  the  necessary  portion  of  in-eri’ancy,  in  other  words,  of  infalli¬ 
bility,  by  its  Divine  Author  ? 

O,  if  the  Scriptures  contained  evidence  that  Our  Lord  had  giA'eu 
instructions  for  the  propagation  and  ])erpetuation  of  His  rolig^l)n, 
.according  to  the  modes  Avhich  the  Private  Reasoners  adopt,  the 
Catholic  Church  Avould  lose  all  authority  for  me.  If  He  had  said, 
“Go  ye,  therefore,  Avrite  the  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the 
E])istles  and  the  Apocalypse,  unite  them  with  the  Avritings  of  the 
Old  Testament,  until  they  compose  A\diat  shall  be  called  the  Bible^ 
invent  printing,  discover  the  properties  of  steam,  apply  both  to 
multiply  copies  of  the  Bible,  distribute  these  among  the  disci) >les, 
send  them  to  the  heathen,  telling  each  and  all  to  search  the  Scrip- 


/ 


608  AECHBISnOP  HUGHES.  ^ 

t  ures  mid  icl^'e  for  themselves,  and  behold  I  shall  be  Avith  the  Bible, 
and  ihe  readers  thereof,  no  matter  how  contradictory  may  be  the 
opinions  to  which  the  perusal  of  it  shall  give  rise  in  their  minds,  all 
days,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  if,  I  say,  Christ  had  so  spoken, 
find  the  Scriptures  had  so  recorded  the  fact,  I,  too,  should  promote 
my  poor  temporal  interests,  by  giving  in  my  humble  adherence  to 
fhe  ]'rincii)le  of  the  Private  Reasoners.  But  as  it  is,  I  cannot  forget 
.another  admonition  of  Our  Blessed  Lord,  “  What  doth  it  profit  a 
i.ian,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?” 

54.  XoAAy  dear  reader,  if  these  reasons  be  sufficient  to  hinder  me 
from  forsaking  the  One,  Holy,  Catholic  Church,  after  the  example 
of  the  fallen  writer  who  has  addressed  letters  to  me  from  the  place 
of  his  apostacy,  should  they  not  be  equally  good  reasons  for  you  to 
seek  communion  in  the  Chiu'ch  which  he  has  forsaken  ?  Is  your 
soul  less  dear  to  you,  than  mine  is  to  me  ?  And  if,  excepting  my 
own  unworthiness,  I  am  in  the  way  of  eternal  life,  Avhich  Christ  has 
ordained,  and  to  Avhich  he  has  opened  the  entrance  for  all  mankind, 
why  should  not  you  be  prepared  to  enter  upon  k,  and  be  the  com¬ 
panion  of  the  journey  through  life  with  so  many  united  millions, 
in  the  harmonious  unity  and  Communion  of  God’s  Church  ?  Why 
should  you  still  have  to  grope  your  way  tlirough  the  mists  of  error 
and  private  opinion,  outside  her  Communion,  when  Avithin  you  could 
haA"e  the  certainty  of  truth,  and  the  promise  of  your  A'ery  SaAuour, 
as  a  pillar  of  the  cloud  by  day,  and  a  pillar  of  fire  by  night,  the  one 
to  enlighten  the  darkness  of  your  natural  reason,  the  other  to  shield 
you  from  the  false  and  deceitful  glare  of  human  science  Avhich  is  not 
according  to  God.  O,  hoAv  glorious  and  admirable  are  the  consist¬ 
ency  and  identity  of  that  religion,  in  which  it  is  my  privilege  to 
borrow,  in  reply  to  the  appeal  of  the  unhappy  man  who  has  ad¬ 
dressed  me,  the  language  with  Avhich  St.  Augustine  rebuked  a  Pri- 
Axate  Reasoner,  fourteen  hundred  years  ago :  “  In  the  Catholic 
Church,  not  to  mention  that  most  sound  Avisdom,  to  the  knoAAdedge 
of  Avhich  a  feAV  spiritu.al  men  att.ain  in  this  life,  so  as  to  knoAV  it  in 
a  very  small  measure,  indeed,  for  they  are  but  men,  but  still  to  know 
it  Avithout  doubtfulness — for  not  quickness  of  understanding,  but 
simplicity  in  believing,  makes  the  rest  of  the  masses  most  safe — not 
to  mention  this  wisdom,  Avhich  you  (Manicha3s)  do  not  believe  to  be 
in  the  Catholic  Church,  many  other  things  there  are  which  most 
*  justly  kee])  me  in  her  bosom.  The  agreement  of  peoples  and  na- 
tioj^s  keeps  me  ;  an  authority  begun  Avith  miracles,  nourished  Avith 
hope,  increased  with  charity,  strengthened  (confirmed)  by  antiquity, 
keeps  me  ;  the  succession  of  priests  from  the  chair  itself  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  unto  Avhom  the  Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  commit¬ 
ted  Ilis  sheep,  to  the  present  Bishop,  keeps  me  ;  finally,  the  name 
itself  of  the  Catholic  Church  keeps  me — a  name  Avhich,  in  the  midst 
of  so  many  heresies,  this  Church  alone  has,  not  A\  ithout  cause,  so 
held  possession  of  (or  obtained)  as  th.at,  though  all  heretics  AAmuld 
Iain  have  themselves  called  Catholics,  yet  to  the  inquiry  of  any 
stranger.  Where  is  the  meeting  of  the  Catholic  Church  held  ?  no 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


609 


heretic  wouid  dare  to  point  out  his  own  basilica,  or  house.  These, 
therefore,  so  numerous  and  so  powerful  ties  of  the  Christian  name- 
ties  most  dear,  justly  keep  a  believing  man  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
even  thougli  through  the  slowness  of  our  understanding,  or  the  de¬ 
servings  of  o\ir  lives,  truth  show  not  herself  as  yet  in  her  clearest 
light.  Whereas,  amongst  you,  where  are  none  of  these  things  to 
invite  and  keep  me,  there  is  only  the  loud  promise  of  truth,  which, 
if  it  be  indeed  shown  to  be  so  manifest  as  not  to  be  able  to  be 
called  into  doubt,  is  to  be  preferred  before  all  those  things  by  which 
I  am  kept  in  the  Catholic  Church,  but  which,  if  it  be  only  promised, 
and  not  exhibited,  no  one  shall  move  me  from  that  faith  which  at¬ 
taches  my  mind  to  the  Christian  religion  by  ties  so  numerous  and 
so  powerful.” — St.  Angus,  Contra  Ep.  Manichm. 


LETTER  VI. 

Dear  Reader  : 

55.  The  order,  according  to  which  our  Divine  Redeemer  pro¬ 
ceeded,  in  the  establishment  of  Ilis  Church,  is  well  worthy  of  your 
deepest  consideration.  He  alone  is,  in  His  own  right,  the  true 
B’shop  and  Pastor  of  souls.  Whatever  spiritual  powers  have  been 
exercised  by  the  ministers  of  His  Church,  are  powers  not  originat¬ 
ing  in  themselves,  nor  conferred  by  human  authority,  but  are 
delegated  by  Him,  so  that  through  them,  as  ministers  of  God,  and 
dispensers  of  the  Divine  mysteries.  He  is  still  propagating  the 
knowledge,  and  dispensing  the  mysteries  of  man’s  redemption, 
through  merits  of  His  passion  and  death.  He  first,  as  you  have 
seen,  brought  over  to  belief  in  Him,  those  who  are  spoken  of  as 
His  “  disciples.”  For  their  sake.  He  selected,  from  among  them¬ 
selves,  some  to  be  “  Apostles.”  From  among  the  Apostles  He  se¬ 
lected  one,  “  Peter,”  to  be  their  Chief,  their  superior  visible  Head 
on  Earth,  the  common  centre  of  their  Union,  and  the  great  Key¬ 
stone,  so  to  speak,  of  the  Apostolic  arch,  which  should  bind  all  the 
parts  of  the  Christian  edifice  together.  Thus,  the  order  which  He 
prescribed,  and  authorized  by  His  own  example,  is,  that  all  should 
be  disciples,  in  tlie  first  instance  ;  and  then,  that  the  Divine  call 
given  to  some,  by  His  Spirit,  to  higher  states  in  the  Church  should 
be  outwardly  recognized  and  approved  by  the  •pre-existing  author¬ 
ity.,  w\l\\  wliich  He  had  invested  her.  Otherwise  there  would  be 
no  protection  for  His  fold  from  the  inroads  of  wolves,  presenting 
themselves  in  sheep’s  clothing.  Otherwise,  any  one  might  pretend 
that  God  had  called  him  to  the  work  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and 
laying  hold  of  the  Bible,  might  rush  to  the  first  pulpit  he  found  va¬ 
cant  ;  there  to  give  out,  as  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  the  dreams  of 
his  own  opinions.  In  fact,  something  very  like  this  has  taken  place, 
and  become  general,  among  the  Private  Reasoners. 

56.  But  Our  Redeemer  took  precautions  against  this,  both  in  the 

39 


610 


ARCHtrSIIOP  nUGIIES. 


example  of  TTis  own  ministry,  and  in  His  injunctions  to  His  Apostles. 
He  did  not  enter  on  His  public  ministry  even  on  the  strengtli  of 
His  miracles ;  for,  the  great  object  of  His  miracles  was  to  prove 
that  God  had  sent  Him.  He  did  not  pretend  to  teach  of  Himself ; 
but  “  whatsoever  things  He  had  heard  of  the  Father,”  He  made 
known  to  them ;  or  if  intimating  for  their  model,  that  His  prepara¬ 
tion  for  His  public  ministry  was  in  the  condition  of  a  disciple ;  one 
who  learns  first,  and  is  sent  to  teach  afterward.  And,  accordingly, 
when  He  delegates  the  office  of  teachers  in  His  stead  to  the  Apos¬ 
tles,  He  prescribes  the  order  in  which  it  is  be  carried  on :  “  As  the 
Father  has  sent  one.,  so  also  I  sent  you.’’’’  And  again,  “  have  not 
chosen  one.,  but  I  have  chosen  you  that  you  go  aoid  hrioog  forth  fruit., 
and  that  your  fruit  may  remain.'’’  It  is  this  way  that  the  Apostles 
themselves,  and  their  successors,  down  to  the  present  day,  have 
ever  proceeded  in  recruiting  the  sanctuary,  and  continuing  the 
Apostleship  of  the  Church.  The  individual  candidate  for  the  holy 
ministry,  even  though  inwardly  called  of  God,  required  to  be  out- 
w'ardly  recognized  and  approved,  by  the  proper  authority  pre-exist¬ 
ing.  Thus  Mathias,  Timothy,  Barnabas,  Titus,  Clement,  and  others, 
were  associated  to  supply  in  the  order  of  the  ministry,  the  spiritual 
wants  of  the  still  increasing  discijtleship. 

57.  To  the  importance  of  this  economy,  I  cannot  too  earnestly 
call  your  attention.  It  opens  up  the  evidence  of  a  great  principle 
of  Divine  wisdom,  in  the  establishment  of  the  Church,  and  of  great 
comfort  in  consolation  to  those  who  are  in  her  sacred  communion. 
By  the  light  of  this  principle  and  the  facts  of  history,  the  learned, 
or  the  illiterate  Catholic,  can  trace  his  relation  to  the  work  of 
spiritual  regeneration,  wrought  by  Our  Redeemer,  through  an  un¬ 
broken  connection  of  outward  historical  evidence,  back  to  the 
days  in  which  the  Saviour  of  the  World  preached  the  perfect,  and 
in  one  sense,  new  order  of  God’s  goodness,  by  the  well  of  Jacob, 
or  from  the  bark  of  Peter  on  the  lake  of  Gallilee.  Such  Catho¬ 
lic  is  under  the  pastorship  of  a  clergyman  who  has  been  sent  by  his 
Bishop  ;  that  Bishop  has  been  sent  by  other  Bishops,  pre-exist'ing  in 
the  Church ;  and  under  the  appropriation  and  confirmation  of  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter  in  the  See  of  Rome — associated  to  the 
Apostolic  body — each  one  of  those  Bishops  had  been  sent  in  like 
manner,  and  so  on,  in  the  ascending  series,  until  you  reach  the 
Apostolic  age ;  whilst  by  a  singular,  special,  and  most  remarkable 
providence  of  Christ  over  His  Church,  the  direct  line  of  the  s\ic- 
cessors  of  St.  Peter,  is  as  traceable,  name  by  name,  and  from  age  to 
ago,  from  the  days  of  Christ,  as  the  successive  names  of  the  English 
sovereigns  since  William  the  Conqueror,  or  of  our  presidents  since 
the  adoption  of  the  American  Constitution.  In  no  case,  from  the 
Sovereign  Pontift’  in  the  See  of  Peter,  down  to  the  humblest 
grade  in  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  has  any  one  ever  been  allowed 
to  rise  from  the  lower,  to  the  higher  grade,  of  ecclesiastical  sub¬ 
ordination,  except  by  the  approbation  and  confirmation  of  the  pre¬ 
existing  authority  of  the  Church.  So  that  by  a  Divine  institution, 


LETTERS  ON"  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


611 


otir  pastors  are  sent  by  older  pastors  who  had  been  sejit  by  others,  in 
perpetual  succession,  until  you  reach  the  Apostles,  who  had  been 
sent  by  Christ,  who  had  been  sent  by  God. 

dS.  But  it  was  not  enough  that  they  should  have  been  sent,  or 
approved,  by  the  pre-existing  authority  of  the  Church  ;  for  as  Judas 
had  fallen  away,  although  called  by  Christ  to  the  ministry,  and  as  any 
individual  Priest  or  Bishop  was  liable  to  tall  away,  it  was  neces¬ 
sary  to  provide  for  the  safety  of  the  flock  in  such  contingency. 
And  that  provision  was  made  in  the  very  conditions  on  which  the 
Church  conferred  pastoral  powers,  and  recognized  the  official  char¬ 
acter  in  each  of  her  ministers.  The  individual  was  supposed  to 
have  learned,  as  a  frisciple,  what  he  was  to  teach,  in  his  ministerial 
capacity  ;  namely,  all  things  whatsover  Christ  had  commanded  Ilis 
Apostles.  The  living  and  universal  Church,  at  the  period  of  such 
a})pointment,  was  in  conscious  possession  of  what  had  been  thus 
commanded  by  Our  Lord.  So  that,  the  new  minister  was  bound, 
not  only  by  the  conditions  of  his  appointment,  but  also  by  his  own 
most  solemn  oath  and  vow,  to  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  Church, 
and  to  teach,  as  doctrine^  nothing  besides.  Hence,  if,  as  in  the  case 
of  Xestorius  and  other  fallen  Bishojis,  any  one  of  the  Episcopal  Or¬ 
der  should  embrace  novel  or  heretical  doctrines,  the  fact  of  his  ha’Tng 
been  sent,  in  the  first  instance,  by  proper  authority,  could  not  avail  him 
in  an  attempt  to  lead  the  portion  of  the  Hock  over  which  he  had  been 
placed,  into  poisonous  and  destructive  pastures.  That  flock  had  be¬ 
longed  to  the  Church,  before  his  appointment ;  and  the  Spouse  of 
Christ  would  have  been  left  unable  to  protect  her  children,  if  the 
flock  were  thus  exposed  to  be  involved  in  the  apostacy  of  the 
faithless  shepherd,  who  had  been  placed  over  them,  not  for  Ms  sake, 
but  for  theirs.  In  all  such  contingencies,  the  Church  revoked  the 
mission.,  and  withdrew  the  jurisdiction,  of  the  hireling  shepherd, 

“  whose  own  the  sheep  were  not.”  It  remained  for  all  such  pastors, 
and  their  adherents,  to  renounce  the  Church,  and  to  turn  Private 
Keasoners  ;  both  of  which  they  seldom  failed  to  do. 

59.  Now,  dear  reader,  if  you  were  a  Catholic,  you  would  be  filled 
with  gratitude  to  the  Divine  Founder  of  Clmstianity,  for  having 
(in  the  organization  of  this  Clmrch)  thus  fenced  and  guarded  round 
about  the  sacred  deposit  of  His  revelation,  with  such  precautions,  ' 
and  such  means  of  security.  You  have  seen  already,  that  Christ 
had  identified  His  own  voice  with  that  of  the  teachers,  whom  He 
commissioned  to  carry  on  His  ministry,  “  He  that  heareth  you, 
heareth  JMe,”  and  what  is  recorded  in  the  beginning  of  the  tenth 
chapter  of  St.  John  is  as  true  to-day,  in  the  Catholic  Church,  as  it 
was  when  first  declared  by  her  Divine  Founder  :  “  Amen,  amen,  I 
say  to  you  ;  he  that  entereth  not  by  the  door  into  the  sheepfold,  but 
climbeth  up  another  way,  the  same  is  a  thief  and  a  robber ;  but 
he  that  entereth  in  by  the  door  is  the  shepherd  of  the  sheep.  To 
him  the  porter  openeth ;  and  the  sheep  hear  his  voice ;  and  he 
calleth  Ids  own  sheep  by  name  and  leadeth  them  out.  And 
when  he  hath  led  out  his  own  sheep,  he  goeth  before  them,  and  the 


C12 


AKCHBISUOP  HUGHES. 


sheep  follow  him;  because  they  know  his  voice.  But  a  stranger 
they  follow  not,  but  fly  from  him ;  because  they  know  net  the  voice 
of  sstrangersP 

60.  It  has,  perhaps,  never  struck  you  that  the  Greek  word,  Apostle, 
simply  signifies  one  sent.  So  also  the  word  missionarp,  derived  from 
the  Latin  verb,  mitio,  signifies  the  same — one  sent.  Hence,  as  you 
have  seen,  our  Divine  Saviour  taught  on  earth  as  the  Apostle.,  or 
the  sent.,  from  God.  This  mission  from  the  Father  he  conveyed  to 
those  whom  he  sent.,  and  they,  as  being  the  depository  of  the  Divine 
Authority  to  send,  conveyed  it  to  others  in  proportion  as  the  wants 
of  the  Church,  and  the  succession  of  time,  required.  You  perceiv  e 
how  intimate  is  the  relation  between  this  economy  and  the  principle 
of  faith  and  doctrine.,  as  set  forth  in  the  preceding  letters.  God  had 
appointed  that  men  should  receive  and  believe  the  doctrines  of  reve¬ 
lation  from  the  teaching  of  those  who  were  thus  commissioned  to 
make  them  known.  The  ear,  and  not  the  eye,  was  to  be  the  inlet  of 
the  soul — ^and  this  St.  Paul  eloquently  and  beautifully  sets  forth  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans :  “  How,  then,  shall  they  call  on  Him  in 
whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  Or,  how  shall  they  believe  Him  of 
whom  they  have  not  heard?  And  how  shall  they  hear  without  a 
preacher  ?  And  how  shall  they  preach  except  they  are  sent  ?  .  .  .  . 
Faith,  then,  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  vrords  of  Christ.” 
The  opinions  of  the  Private  lieasoners  are  very  different  from  this. 
According  to  them,  faith  cometh  by  seeing,  and  the  true  preacher  is 
the  voiceless  Bible ;  and,  accordingly,  their  Apostles  are  the  colpor- 
ievrs,  who  sow  Bibles  over  the  world  in  order  to  reap,  not  the  har¬ 
vest  of  faith  but  the  contradictory  speculations  of  private  opinion. 
Still,  the  Bible  had  its  divine  use  of  unspeakable  value — this  being 
only  the  abuse  of  it.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the  inspired 
writer  lays  down  the  rule  for  the  assumption  of  the  ministerial 
character  in  the  Christian  Church:  “Neither  doth  any  man  take 
the  honor  to  himself  but  he  that  is  called  by  God  as  Aaron  was.” 
Now,  Aaron  was  called  by  God  through  t\\e  pre-existing  authority 
and  outward  appointment  of  Moses.  In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the 
Apostles’  Acts,  Barnabas  is  sent  to  Antioch,  and  there  with  Saul  he 
“  ta-ught  a  great  multitude,”  so  that  at  Antioch  the  disciples  were 
first  named  Christians.  After  the  dispute  respecting  the  Gentiles 
and  the  law  had  been  settled,  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  the  dis- 
turbei-s  are  spoken  of  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse  of  the  fifteenth 
chapter  as  “  some  going  out  from  us  .  ...  to  whom  we  gave  no  com¬ 
mandment,  i.  e.,  whom  we  had  not  sent. 

61.  In  short,  there  is  no  instance  on  record  in  which  the  mission 
did  not  emanate  from  the  pre-existing  authority  of  the  Church,  con¬ 
ferred  in  an  outward  manner,  except  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul.  His 
mission  was,  in  some  sense,  an  exception  to  the  established  order. 
He  had  been  miraculously  enlightened  with  a  knowledge  of  the 
faith  and  doctrines  of  the  other  Apostles,  and  received  his  authority 
to  preach  and  teach  the  same  from  .Jesus  Christ  himself.  But  yet 
even  this  did  not  occur  in  an  invisible  manner.  There  were  wit* 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHTJECH. 


613 


nesses  of  tlie  light  and  of  the  sounds  which  suddenly  changed  the 
persecutor  into  a  vessel  of  election,  and  an  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 
Besides  this,  he  confirmed  his  mission  by  miracles,  the  power  to 
operate  which  conferred  on  him  in  attestation  of  his  having  been  sent. 
A  similar  power  the  Almig-hty  never  failed  to  confer  on  the  prophets 
or  other  extraordinary  messengers,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
But  in  the  economy  of  the  Christian  Church  the  Apostleship  of  St. 
Paul  is  the  only  instance,  and  that  is  sustained  by  its  own  super- 
natui-al  evidence.  In  all  other  instances  the  mission,  i.  e.,  the  minis¬ 
terial  character  and  officer  of  teaching  and  preaching  the  revelations 
of  Christ,  was  derived  from  the  authority  pre-existing  in  the  Church, 
and  which  had  descended  from  God,  through  Christ  and  his  Apos¬ 
tles,  as  we  have  already  seen. 

62.  In  this  exposition,  dear  reader,  I  have  directed  your  attention 
♦^specially  to  two  points.  The  mission  of  those  who  are  to  teach  the 
word  of  God  ;  and  the  revocation  of  powers  when  any  of  those  sent 
cease  to  discharge  the  functions  of  his  appointment.  The  mission, 
as  the  term  is  used  here,  implies  a  pre-existing  power  and  anthority 
to  send.  It  implies  a  person  to  be  sent  to  ministerial  duties,  which 
he  might  not  lawfully  undertake  without  such  appointment  and 
d«5)uted  authority.  Besides,  it  supposes  that  before  he  is  sent,  he  is 
inwardly  called  of  God,  and  is  instructed  in  the  extent,  and  limita- 
tioii  also,  of  the  office  which  is  conferred  upon  him.  In  all  this, 
however,  I  speak  but  of  the  visible  organization  of  the  Church, 
effected  by  divine  wisdom  and  goodness  to  preserve  to  us  the  word 
of  God,  as  such,  and  the  spiritual  means  of  grace  which  he  has  ap¬ 
pointed  for  the  progressive  and  perpetual  regeneration  of  mankind, 
by  applying  to  them  individually  in  communion  with  the  Church, 
the  merits  of  his  sufferings  and  death.  These  means  have  reference 
to  the  interior  spiritual  life,  of  which  I  shall  treat  hereafter.  Com¬ 
pared  wdth  these  piecious  institutions  of  our  God,  the  outward 
organization  of  the  Church  is,  one  might  say,  but  as  the  casket  to 
the  jewel  within — valuable  on  account  of  what  it  preserves.  The 
preservation  of  the  jewel  depends  on  that  of  the  casket ;  and  the 
Private  Beasoners  may  perceive,  if  they  are  not  too  blinded  by 
prejudice  to  recognize  the  fact,  that  in  breaking  one  they  have  de¬ 
stroyed  both — albeit,  they  “  search  the  Scriptures”  in  quest  of  the 
rejected  and  lost  treasure. 

63.  Let  us  apply  to  them  some  of  the  tests  which  are  so  posi¬ 
tively  enjoined,  so  universally  adhered  to,  in  the  Primitive  Apostolic 
and  Catholic  Church.  You  have  seen  already  that  what  they  call 
“  faith,”  “  doctrine  of  the  Bible,”  etc.,  is  nothing  more  than  their 
own  opinions.  These  opinions  have  been  exaggerated  in  certain 
formularies  of  belief,  called  Articles  of  Religion,  Confessions  of 
Faith,  and  the  like.  These  collected  and  concentrated  opinions  they 
support  on  a  living  traditional  opiaiim,  to  the  effect  that  the  symbol 
contains  the  exact  meaning  of  the  written  Word  of  God,  and  al¬ 
though  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  they  pretend,  are  plain  and  intelligi¬ 
ble  to  all,  yet  the)  present  to  their  several  schools  the  symbolism  of 


614 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


their  opinions  expressed  in  their  Confession  of  Faith,  as — if  they 
■will  excuse  me  for  so  saying — the  Bible  made  easy. 

Doctrines,  as  positive  facts  of  revelation,  they  have  none  ;  and,  on 
their  principle  of  private  opinion,  cannot  have.  But  supposing  that 
they  had  doctrines  among  them,  has  any  of  them  the  riglit,  consist¬ 
ently  with  the  order  which  Our  Lord  established  in  Ilis  Church,  to 
teach  or  preach  them  in  His  name  ?  Observe,  I  do  not  say,  espe¬ 
cially  if  the  matters  were  of  less  sacred  consequence,  that  they  have 
not  a  right  to  preach  their  opinions  to  all  mankind.  But  in  that 
case,  too,  candor  and  fiiirness  should  induce  them  to  proclaim  that 
they  promulgate,  not  the  doctrines  of  Christ  as  facts  of  revelation, 
but  simply  their  own  opinions  as  to  what  those  doctrines  are.  The 

rong  which  I  think  they  do  to  the  simple-minded,  is  in  seeking  to  have 
their  opinions  received  as  the  teachings  of  Christ  himself.  If  they  had 
received  the  true  mission,  this  Avould  not,  could  not  have  been  the 
case.  They  would  have  been  great  in  their  generations,  by  their 
associations  with  the  Apostolical  and  universal  ministry  of  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Church,  in  preaching  the  doctrines  which  she  received  from 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  ;  but  personally^  and  of  themselves,  they 
would  have  been  as  insignificant  as  the  echo  of  truth  which  their 
voice  prolongs.  The  most  educated  congregation  in  the  Catholic 
woi-ld  would  be  stricken  with  horror,  if  its  minister  dared  to  put 
forth  his  opinion^  no  matter  how  learned  he  might  be,  as,  or  instead 
of,  the  doctrines  of  Christy  Avhich  he  Avas  supposed  to  have  learned 
before  his  admission  to  his  sacred  office,  and  Avas  bound  to  teach 
afterAvard.  But  private  reasoning  has  changed  all  this.  The  world 
at  this  day,  or  at  least  in  the  language  Avhich  Ave  are  accustomed  to 
heal',  recognizes  the  man  Avho  dresses  in  graA’e  and  reverend  cos¬ 
tume,  and  who  A'olunteers  such  vieAvs  as  occur  to  his  mind,  from 
reading  a  passage  in  the  Bible  to  any  public  audience  that  may  listen 
to  him,  as  a  “  preacher  then  a  preacher  is  “  a  miwister  of  the  Gos¬ 
pel  then  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  is  an  “  ambassador  of  God 
here  they  Avill  tell  you  to  “see  MattheAV,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse,”  chapter  and 
verse  ;  and  thus,  by  a  deceptiAm  sliding  scale  of  the  human  language, 
and  a  direct  perversion  of  the  Scriptures,  they  come  to  be  regarded 
as  persons  whom  Christ  had  sent  to  carry  on  the  Avork  of  His  min¬ 
istry. 

64.  I  Avould  not  have  you  disregard  the  conventional  usages  of 
society,  or  the  courtesies  of  social  life,  by  Avhich  the  character  of  the 
sacred  ministry  is  recognized  as  such.  But,  speaking  according  to 
the  truth  of  God,  and  the  eternal  interests  of  immortal  souls,  it  is 
altogether  necessary  to  scrutinize  the  claim,  and  investigate  the 
basis  and  foundation  on  Avhich  it  is  supposed  to  rest.  By  Avhom 
were  these  supposed  ministers  of  Christ  sent?  This  is  a  test  ques¬ 
tion.  The  Church  of  God  is  older  than  they.  Did  she  send  them  ? 
Assuredly  not.  Had  she  sent  them  in  the  first  instance,  Avhen  they 
ceased  to  be  faithful  to  their  appointment,  she  revoked  their  mis¬ 
sion,  and  canceled  their  authority.  Did  God  himself  send  them,  as 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


615 


extraordinary  envoys  ?  Then,  like  St.  Paul,  let  them  appeal  to  mira¬ 
cles  to  prove  their  mission,  and  like  him  to  preach  the  doctrines  which 
he  had  revealed  to  the  Church.  It  is  certain  that,  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance,  they  were  not  sent  by  any  recognized  jyre-existing  authority 
ir  the  Calliolic  Church,  or  of  any  other  pretended  Church  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.  For  instance,  when  Arius,  or  Nestorius,  Euty 
dies,  or  Pelagius,  or  Waldo,  or  Wickliffe,  or  Luther,  or  Cranmer, 
or  Calvin,  went  forth,  from  what  possible  authority  could  either  of 
them  derive  a  mission  to  propagate  the  several  schools  of  private 
ojiinion  into  which  their  adherents  have  been,  or  are,  divided  ? 
Who  sent  them?  ISTot  the  Church;  for  they  either  left,  or  were 
expdled  from  her  Communion.  Not  God;  for  this  would  be  au¬ 
thorizing  them  to  pull  down  the  Church  His  Divine  Son  has  insti¬ 
tuted.  Not  themselves;  for  no  man  can  send  himself.  Who, 
then,  sent  them  ?  Not  their  followers;  for  it  was  only  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  a  pretended  mission  that  they  could  have  followers.  Not 
the  Emperors  of  the  Eastern  Emjiire,  nor  of  the  Western  ;  for  em¬ 
perors  of  the  earth  are  earthy.  Not  the  Princes  of  Germany,  not 
the  Parliaments  of  England  ;  for  they  have  no  such  power  or  au¬ 
thority  to  confer.  By  %vhom^  then,  were  they  sent  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance  ?  Evidently  they  had  no  mission  from  God  ;  they  were  not 
sent,  and  could  not  be  sent,  by  any  other. 

Now,  dear  reader,  give,  I  pray  you,  this  letter  a  second  and  more 
attentive  perusal,  and  study  deeply  the  importance  of  its  contents. 
There  is,  at  the  jiresent  time,  a  certain  form  and  order  of  mission  for 
those  who  assume  to  be  preachers  of  the  Gospel  among  the  Private 
Reasoners.  But,  in  the  sight  of  man,  there  is  no  reasonable  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  warranty  by  which  it  is  carried  on  ;  nor  can  there  be  in 
the  sight  of  God,  according  to  the  want  of  evidence  before  us,  any 
I’eality.  Examine  this  question.  The  economy  of  God  in  the  organ¬ 
izing  of  his  Church  is  manifested  as  you  have  seen ;  “  how  can  they 
preach  unless  they  are  sent.”  Nor  does  this  vary  in  its  analogy  with 
the  outward  display  of  His  almighty  poAver  in  the  material  creation 
and  government  of  the  world.  Every  beam  of  light  reflected  from 
the  earth  must  have  a  sun  from  which  it  proceeds.  Every  tree  that 
grows  must  have  a  root  by  which  it  derives  nutriment  to  renew  its 
vernal  foliage.  Every  stream  or  river  that  is  seen  gliding  onward 
must  have  a  fountain  to  supply  the  flow  of  its  waters.  Every  min¬ 
ister  of  the  One  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  both  at  pres¬ 
ent  and  at  every  period,  has  been  sent,  in  regular  order,  by  those 
who  were  sent  by  the  Apostles,  who  were  sent  by  Christ,  Avho  was 
sent  by  God.  But  not  so  with  the  ministers  of  religion  among  the 
Private  Reasoners.  If  they  are  a  tree,  where  is  their  root?  If  they 
are  a  river,  where  is  the  fountain  from  which  they  flow  ? 


61G 


ARCHBISHOP  IIUGHBS. 


LETTER  VII. 


Dear  Reader: 

65.  Truth  doee  not  change  by  lapse  of  time.  In  studying  this 
question,  then,  take  your  stand  point  of  scrutiny  at  the  period  when 
Luther  turned  Private  Reasoner,  say  I51V — exactly  three  hundred 
and  thirty-one  years  ago.  The  year  previous  there  was  but  one 
United  Catholic  Church  in  Christendom.  Its  people  had  been  origi¬ 
nally  converted  from  Paganism  to  Christianity,  but  subsequently 
had  continued  to  receive  the  faith,  as  it  were,  by  inhei’itance,  from 
their  Catholic  parents  and  their  Catholic  education,  in  which  the 
aggregate  of  families  had  been  formed  into  a  parish ;  the  aggregate 
of  parislies  into  the  diocese ;  the  aggregate  of  these,  under  the  chief 
apostleship  inherited  by  the  successors  of  St.  Peter,  into  the  Uni¬ 
versal  Communion  of  the  Catholic  Church.  All  recognized  the 
same  pastors,  acknowledged  the  same  sacraments,  believed  the  same 
truth  of  Christ’s  revelation.  The  belief  was  faith.,  and  not  opinion  ; 
for  Christianity  as  a  revelation  was,  as  it  ever  has  been,  received  on 
the  authority  of  testimony.,  and  not  on  the  speculation  of  'private  rea¬ 
soning.  The  whole  Church  of  God,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting 
sun,  was  a  witness  of  its  belief  and  doctrine.  Among  those  who 
had  been  sent  no  man  was  daring  enough  to  propose,  as  lohat  Christ 
Imd  revealed.,  the  results  of  his  own  reading.  Every  minister  in  the 
Church  of  God,  from  the  sovereign  Pontiff  down  to  the  cleric  in 
minor  orders,  had  been  called  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  grade, 
by  an  acknowledged  authority in  the  Church.  Those  to 
whom  the  ministry  of  religion  had  been  delegated,  had  been  sent  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  order  and  appointment  of  our  Lord  himself.  The 
Greek  schismatics  were  sank,  or  sinking  into  spiritual  slavery  under 
the  pressure  of  civil  despotism  in  Northern  and  Eastern  Europe,  as 
well  as  Western  Asia.  But  even  in  these  regions  there  were  innu¬ 
merable  Catholics,  whilst  the  Church  herself,  in  the  sense  which  her 
Catholicity  has  been  explained,  surrounded  the  globe,  like  the  atmos¬ 
phere  which  men  breathe,  without  any  recognition  or  distinction 
of  geographical  boundaries.  From  the  east  to  the  west,  from  the 
south  to  the  north,  there  was  the  universal  attestation  of  one  Lord, 
one  Faith,  and  one  Baptism.  Men  might  differ  from  each  other, 
as  they  did,  in  forms  of  government,  in  climate,  in  local  habitation ; 
but  as  regards  religion  there  was  no  difference.  One  Catholic  Hymn 
of  faith,  of  worship,  of  church  goveinraent,  of  unity,  rose  in  univer¬ 
sal  harmony  from  all  parts  of  the  earth,  in  which  the  name  of  Christ 
was  known  and  adored,  without  a  note  of  discord.  Other  topics 
there  were  of  human  origin ;  and  in  regard  to  them  it  was  lawful  to 
entertain  honest  oinnions  and  honest  differences.  But  religion  was 
the  work  of  Christ ;  it  was  all.,  if  it  was  any  thing ;  it  had  been  dur¬ 
ing  fifteen  preceding  centuries  transmitted  as  a  fact ;  and  about  the 
reality  of  facts,  so  attested,  there  is  no  room  for  opinion  or  differ¬ 
ences. 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


617 


66.  But  now  comes  the  year  1517  ;  and  from  tliat  period  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  modern  private  reasonins^  takes  its  origin.  Luther  gave  ?iis 
opinion  at  great  length,  both  orally  and  in  writing ;  Carolstad  gave 
his,  dilfering  from  Luther ;  Zuingle  and  Calvin  theirs,  in  many  re¬ 
spects  differing  from  both ;  Socinus  gave  his,  and  did  not  agree 
with  any  of  them'.  Thus  the  schools  were  opened,  and  what  the 
masters  had  taught,  certainly  the  scholars  had  a  right  to  learn. 
Here,  then,  was  furnished  the  primitive  stock  of  opinions  from 
learned  and  eloquent  men ;  and  although  they  were  mutually 
contradictory  of  each  other,  still  they  were  severally  ascribed  to 
the  sume  Bible.  Who  was  to  be  the  judge.  Their  answer  was  the 
Bible.  But  the  Bible  cannot  be  a  judge  of  the  meaning  of  what  is 
written  on  its  inspired  pages,  except  through  the  medium  of  living 
interpretation.  Who  then  shall  be  interpreter  ?  The  Church  !  Not 
at  all.  The  appeal  was  from  her  judgment  and  against  her  tes¬ 
timony.  Who,  then?  “Every  man  for  himself,”  was  the  unani¬ 
mous  reply.  Hence,  every  man,  by  their  principle,  and  of  right,  if 
that  principle  be  correct,  reasoned  within  himself  on  the  written 
words  of  the  Bible,  until  he  formed  some  opinion  of  his  own  on  the 
supposed  meaning,  and  then  erected  this,  his  own  opinion,  into  a 
dogma  of  Christ’s  revelation,  and  quoted  Scripture  to  sujiport  it. 
Three  hundred  years  have  since  elapsed,  and  you  see  the  con¬ 
sequence.  In  Germany,  Socinianism,  Deism,  Atheism,  Pantheism, 
are  enthroned  in  academic  chairs,  and  installed  in  pulpits,  once 
Christian.  This  right  of  substituting  human  opinion  for  the  truths 
of  revelation,  and  in  their  stead,  was  secured  by  the  first  principle 
of  what  was  called  the  Reformation,  and  draws  the  great  first  line 
of  se])aration  between  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  Private  Rea- 
soners,  who  are  excluded  from  her  Communion.  This  principle  does 
not  profess  to  make  or  authorize  infidels,  so  that  they  shall  oppose 
Christ,  or  the  Bible,  directly,  in  that  open,  honest,  candid  manner, 
which  would  put  believing  men  on  their  guard.  It  merely  author¬ 
izes  them  to  oppose  the  Chnrch,  and  then  to  take  up  Christ,  and  ex¬ 
plain  away  his  attributes ;  to  take  up  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
pushing  aside  His  doctrines,  substitute  their  own  opinions,  to  be  sus¬ 
tained  by  “  chapter  and  verse.” 

67.  You  have  seen  that  according  to  the  order  established  by 
Christ,  the  ministers  of  religion  w^ere  to  be  approved,  ordained,  and 
commissioned,  that  is,  sent  by  the  pre-existing  authority  of  the 
Church.  As  regards  'the  foundei‘s  of  the  Private  Reasoners  in 
the  Sixteenth  Century,  this  authority  revoked  their  commission 
wherever  it  had  been  given.  From  that  moment  they  found  them¬ 
selves,  in  reference  to  the  Church  of  God,  very  much  in  the 
]>osition  of  the  American  Commissioner  or  negotiator  of  peace 
from  tliis  country,  w  ho  is  now  in  the  city  of  Mexico.  He  has  received 
from  the  supreme  Executive  pow’er  of  the  State,  such  portion  of 
the  country’s  authority  as  would  enable  him,  within  the  limits  of 
his  commission,  to  discharge  the  functions  of  his  appointment.  This  • 
commission  being  but  a  delegation  of  pow'er,  was  necessarily  revoca- 


618 


AECHBiSHOP  H'UGHES. 


ble  by  the  aiifiiority  which  had  com2:)Osed  it,  and  it  has  been  revoked 
accordingly.  So  that  Mr.  Trist  is  now  a  j^rivate  citizen,  having  no 
more  authority  to  discharge  a  public  ministry  in  the  name  of  his 
Government,  than  any  private  individual.  This  is  precisely  an 
illustration  of  what  happened  between  the  Church  and  the  first 
I’l-ivate  Reasoners  of  the  jreriod  of  the  Reformation.  They  all  had 
been  born,  or  at  least  bajrtized  and  educated  in  the  Catholic  Chui’ch. 
They  all  had  been  taught  in  the  unity  of  the  faith.  Some  of  them 
commissioned  to  preach  her  doctrines,  and  to  minister  her  sacra¬ 
ments.  When  they  turned  aside  to  r-abstitute  their  own  private 
reasoning,  instead  of  the  faith,  which,  as  disciples,  they  had  learned, 
and  which  they  were  seitt  to  teach.  She,  to  protect  the  flock  com¬ 
mitted  to  her  care,  revoked  the  authority  of  the  faithless  com¬ 
missioners,  and  left  them,  in  relbrence  to  the  Church,  much  in  the 
same  situation  which  Mr.  Trist  now  holds  toward  the  Executive 
authority  of  the  United  States. 

Now  the  question  is,  in  their  case,  deduced  to  a  very  simple 
dilemma.  Either  they  were  sent  by  some  new  authority,  hitherto 
unknown  in  the  Church,  or  they  were  not  sent  by  the  Church,  is 
manifest.  That  they  were  sent  by  other  authority,  there  is  not 
the  lightest  evidence.  Now,  if  they  admit  this,  they  grant  my 
whole  argument.  And  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that 
they  neither  preach  nor  minister  by  the  authority  of  Christ ;  that 
they  preach  without  their  being  sent,  contrary  to  the  Divine  in¬ 
junction  ;  that  they  take  this  honor  to  themselves  without  being 
called  of  God,  as  Aaron  was.  This  is  all  that  I  require.  Their 
learning  I  do  not  care  to  dispute.  Their  private  or  personal  char¬ 
acter  I  have  no  desire  to  call  to  question.  Their  eloquence  in  the 
puljjit,  as  i:)ublic  speakers,  I  am  as  ready  to  admit  as  their  warmest 
admirers ;  but  their  derivation  of  any  spiritual  authority,  to  preach 
the  Word  of  God,  or  to  administer  His  Sacraments,  I  utterly  deny, 
for  the  reasons  already  stated.  Calvin  never  having  attained 
l)riest’s  orders  in  the  Church,  organized  the  principles  of  his  school, 
and  the  discipline  of  his  scholars,  according  to  the  exigency  of  his  own 
position.  He  himself  had  not  been  sent,  and  they  who  claim,  under 
him,  can  have  no  pretension  to  Divine  mission.  Luther,  having  been  a 
priest  would  keep  the  position  of  the  ministry  as  high,  at  least,  as  the 
grade  to  which  he  belonged.  But  from  him  and  h^s,  the  authority 
of  the  mission  had  been  withdrawn,  and  no  sup^rly  of  new  author¬ 
ity  as  claimed  from  any  other  scarce.  In  England  the  mission 
was  revoked,  and  the  authority  withdrawn  from  Cranmer,  and 
others  of  the  Episcopal  order,  who  at  a  later  jieriod,  imitated  his 
exanqjle.  They,  however,  in  the  exercise  of  their  private  reason, 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  temporal  sovereign  of  Great 
Britain  j^ossessed  through  the  medium  of  some  hidden  virtue  in  the 
crown  which  he  wore,  the  right  to  suj)])ly  authority,  and  the  power 
to  send,  which  the  Christian  Church  had  derived  from  God  through 
Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

G8.  The  history  of  these  associations,  down  to  the  j^resent  day. 


I.ETTERS  ON  TEE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


619 


exhibit  the  consequences  of  this  principle  in  perfect  keeping  with 
the  ant  ecedents.  A  fictitious  imitation  of  the  Church,  as  respects 
the  principle  of  authority  and  mission,  has  also  prevailed  in  difierent 
ways  in  these  several  communions.  They  have  ordinations  of  the 
minister,  and  a  form  of  sending,  as  if  they  could  transmit  the  orig 
inal  Aj)ostleship.  Can  a'  dry  well  supply  the  flow  of  a  perpetual 
stream  ?  Can  they  transmit  what  they  never  received  ?  Can  they 
impart  powers  which  they  never  possessed  ?  Even  admitting  that 
those  of  the  present.day  among  them  who  exercise  the  functions  of 
the  ministry,  such  as  they  understand  it,  can  point  to  the  period  of 
their  mission,  and  to  the  authority  by  which  they  were  sent,  still, 
if,  in  tracing  tlie  derivation  of  that  pretended  authority  backward, 
you  arrive  at  a  period  where  a  great  link  in  the  chain  of  its  trans¬ 
mission  is  wanting,  you  discover  such  a  flaw  in  the  title  as  renders 
void  every  right  that  is  claimed  under  it ;  then  it  is  manifest  that 
the  forms  of  ordination,  but  still  more  of  the  mission,  become  a 
mere  empty  fiction  among  the  Private  Reasoners.  You  can  proceed 
very  well,  according  to  one  order,  until  you  reach  Calvin  ;  another 
will  conduct  you  with  sufficient  accuracy  until  you  reach  the  prime 
mover  of  what  is  called  the  Reformation  ;  by  a  third  you  can  estab¬ 
lish  a  succession  of  Bishops  under  the  British  crown  as  far  back  as 
Parker  and  Elizabeth.  But  here,  in  each  case,  the  link  which  should 
connect  the  several  parties  with  the  pre-existing  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  or  of  any  other  visible  community  of  Christians, 
is  wanting.  Here  is  the  defect,  in  radice — “  ex  nihillo  nihil  fit.” 
If  these  heads  of  departments  amongst  the  Private  Reasoners  had 
no  authority  themselves,  how  could  they  give  authority  to  others  ? 
And  is  it  not  a  bold  stretch  of  impudence  in  such  a  writer  as  “  Kir- 
wan”  to  invite  Catholics  to  relinquish,  not  only  the  doctrines  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  for  the  silly  opinions  which  he  has  adopted  on  the 
meaning  of  the  Bible,  but  also  to  forsake  that  pastorship  of  the 
Church,  in  which  they  recognize  as  ministers  of  God  only  those 
who  are  sent,  and  can  prove  their  mission  from  the  days  of  Christ 
and  Ilis  Apostles,  to  put  themselves  under  the  spiritual  guidance  of 
men  whom  God  has  not  sent  at  all. 

69.  If  Calvin,  or  Luther,  or  the  Prime  Minister  of  England,  were 
invested  with  power  .and  authority  to  ordain  ministers,  and  give 
them  mission  or  jurisdiction  in  the  Church,  let  the  “  Kirwanites”  and 
Private  Reasoners  furnish  Catholics  with  some  proofs  of  the  fact. 
Let  them  refer  to  and  establish  such  proofs  for  the  satisfaction  of 
their  people,  whenever  they  present  themselves  as  ministers  of  the 
Gospel.  Let  them  acknowledge  the  authority,  and  the  only  author¬ 
ity,  by  which  they  are  sent.  Let  them  be  frank  and  candid  in  a 
matter  of  so  much  importance  to  the  souls  of  others,  as  well  as  their 
own.  Let  them  admit  honorably  that  the  derivation  of  their  power 
dates  only  from  the  period,  and  is  derived  from  the  parties  already 
mentioned.  Let  them  not  disguise  the  fact  that  at  the  period,  the 
unhappy  period,  as  I  must  call  it,  of  their  separation  from  Catholic 
unity,  the  Church  revrked  the  powers  of  mission  and  of  jurisdic- 


620 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


tion,  as  effectually  as  the  Government  has  revoked  the  powers  of 
Commissioner  Trist.  And  that,  in  neither  case,  can  the  work  for 
which  such  powers  had  been  conferred  be  lawfully  carried  on,  or 
continued,  after  their  withdrawal. 

It  is  on  this  account,  among  others,  that  the  mooted  question  of 
Anglican  ordination  is,  after  all,  but  a  point  of  minor  consideration, 
and  of  secondary  importance.  For,  supposing  what  is  best,  but  ex¬ 
tremely  doubtful,  that  the  validity  of  ordination  survived  the  shock 
of  private  reasonings  at  the  period  of  the  change,  still  the  question 
arises,  hoAV  can  they  take  the  honor  to  themselves  unless  they  were 
called  of  God,  as  Aaron  was  ?  And  still  more,  how  can  they 
preach  unless  they  are  sent  ?  By  whom  have  they  been  sent  since 
that  time  ?  Either  by  the  people  as  such,  or  by  the  secular  power 
of  the  State.  Tlie  crown  in  England,  for  instance,  has  usurped  the 
authority  of  Moses,  as  the  medium  by  which  Aaron  was  called  of 
God.  The  crown  has  usurped  the  authority  of  Christ  and  His 
Chui'ch,  in  sending  or  giving  mission  to  the  ministry  of  the  State 
religion.  By  what  title  does  the  crown  ever  become  possessed  of 
such  authority  ?  And  with  what  conscience  can  men  of  enlightened 
minds  pretend  that  authority  in  the  work  of  the  ministry,  derived 
from  such  a  source  is  the  authority  which  Christ  left  to  His 
Church,  to  be  communicated,  restricted,  and,  when  necessary,  re¬ 
voked,  as  you  have  seen  in  my  last  letter.  The  lawfulness  of  the 
mission,  the  rightful  order  of  sending  those  who  are  true  ministers 
of  Christ,  is  one  of  the  most  important  subjects  of  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion.  We  have,  even  whilst  we  write,  an  example  which  is  pro¬ 
nounced  to  be  a  melancholy  one  by  all  parties.  We  have  the 
Prime  Minister  of  England  inflicting  on  what  is  called  the  Church 
m  that  country  a  Bishop,  who  is  declared  by  a  large  number  of  his 
Episcopal  colleagues  a  heretic  of  the  Socinian  order.  They  remon¬ 
strated  at  having  the  souls  and  the  spiritual  interests  of  the  flock  in 
the  Diocese  of  Hereford  abandoned,  or  given  up  to  the  care  of  such 
a  shepherd  ;  but  Lord  John  Russell,  the  present  fountain  of  mis¬ 
sionary  authority  in  Phigland,  knows  the  right  qualifications  for  a 
Bisho]),  and  the  true  spiritual  interests  of  his  countrymen,  better 
than  they  do,  and  accordingly  he  makes  out,  or  causes  to  be  made 
out,  the  necessary  documents  for  the  consecration  and  mission  of 
the  new  prelate,  with  as  much  nonchalance  as  if  he  were  regulating 
some  item  of  the  national  debt,  or  tlie  appointment  of  a  civil  magis¬ 
trate.  The  Bishops  may  protest,  but  if  any  of  them  refuse  to  im¬ 
pose  hands  on  their  Rt.  Rev.  Brother-elect,  the  Minister  of  the  crown 
has  but  to  whisper  in  their  ear  “  prcemin«‘r<?,”  and  the  magic  sound 
of  this  word  will  instantly  cause  their  scruples  to  subside. 

VO.  But,  in  fact,  as  to  the  right  of  the  question  there  appears  no 
ground  why  tliey  should  entertain  scruples  on  the  subject.  Dr. 
Hampden  is  to  be  consecrated  and  invested  with  mission  by  the 
identical  authority  through  wdiich  they  received  and  exercise  both. 
But  yet  all  this  might  pass  if  they  stated  to  the  world  the  nature 
and  character  .of  their  authority  just  for  what  it  is  and  no  more. 


LETTERS.  OX  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


621 


The  wrong  which  I  tliink  is  done,  is  in  assuming  and  allowing  a 
simple-minded  people  to  believe  that  the  spiritual  authority  both  of 
ministerial  ordination  and  pastoral  jurisdiction,  of  which  Lord  John 
llussel  was  the  dispenser,  under  the  crown,  is  the  same  authority 
which  Christ  imparted  to  his  Church,  for  the  perpetuation  of  the 
sacred  ministry  ;  and  which  could  not  depart  from  her.  In  the 
Catholic  Communion,  the  primitive  order  has  never  been  changed, 
the  succession  has  never  been  interrupted.  The  communication  of 
powers  has  always  been  regulated  by  the  same  principle  and  prac¬ 
tice.  It  is  veiy  true  that  in  some  Catholic  countries  the  civil  ruler 
has  been  permitted,  by  a  condescension  of  the  discipline  of  the 
Church,  to  nominate  and  recommend  candidates  for  the  Episcopal 
order.  But  the  Church  never  could  part  with  the  right  to  reject 
them,  when  in  her  judgment  they  were  unlit  for  the  office.  She  has 
never  allowed,  and  never  will  allow,  the  powers  of  this  earth  to 
usurp  the  authority  which  she  received  from  Christ,  for  the  rightful 
perpetuation  of  his  Apostleship,  his  Priesthood,  his  Ministry  of  spir¬ 
itual  life  in  the  preaching  of  Divine  truth,  and  in  the  administration 
of  Divine  sacraments.  Here,  then,  are  two  orders  of  Bishops  preach¬ 
ing  against  each  other ;  the  one,  according  to  the  mission  of  the 
Catholic  Church ;  and  the  other,  according  to  the  mission  of  the 
British  crown.  God  certainly  never  sent  both  ;  which,  then,  of  the 
two  did  he  send  ?  If  the  crown  of  England  has  become  the  channel 
through  which  the  missionary  authority  delegated  by  Christ  is  to  be 
transmitted,  then  the  claim  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  null  and  void. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  that  authority  flows  on  in  the  original  and 
Apostolical  channel  through  which  it  has  descended  even  for  the 
Christians  of  the  British  Isles,  in  the  Church,  during  the  first  fifteen 
hundred  years  of  Christianity,  and  in  which  it  still  flows  through 
her  universal  communion,  it  follows  that  the  pretense  of  the  British 
crown,  to  be  the  dispenser  of  it,  is  a  sacrilegious  usurpation,  and 
that  the  authority  of  clergymen  deriving  jurisdiction  therefrom  is 
utterly  illusive  and  invalid.  It  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  t-o  add 
that  the  principle  of  this  argument  applies  with  still  stronger  force 
to  the  supposed  ministry  of  the  other  denominations  into  which 
Private  Keasoners  are  divided. 

71.  This,  dear  reader,  is  one  of  the  most  important  subjects  to 
which  you  can  apply  your  attention.  It  would  be  calamity  enough 
that  the  doctrines,  so  called,  of  Private  Reasoners  were  nothing  but 
opinions ;  but  if,  in  addition  to  this,  you  consider  that  those  who  as 
clergymren  are  not,  for  any  thing  appears  to  the  contrary,  authorized 
at  all  to  speak  officially  in  the  name  of  Christ,  or  as  delegates  of  Ilis 
Church,  then  tlie  case  becomes  still  more  deplorable.  If,  then,  they 
are  anxious  to  convert  Catholics  from  the  blessed  unity  of  the  faith, 
and  the  Holy  Communion  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  let  them  present 
motives  for  such  conversions  wortliy  of  the  soul  whose  salvation 
their  advice  would  put  in  jeopardy.  Let  them  deal  with  us  as 
rational  beings,  although  not  Private  Reasoners.  Let  “  Kirwan,” 
if  he  will,  address  the  faithful  flock  from  which  circumstances,  per- 


622 


ARCHBISHOP  HTJGHES. 


haps  the  calamities  of  Lis  youth,  induced  him  to  separate ;  and  such 
as  “  Ivirwan,”  wlio,  under  names  are  as  numerous-  as  the  contradic¬ 
tory  sects  to  wliich  they  belong,  tell  us  what  advantage,  not  of  this 
life,  for  its  advantages  would  be  but  a  base  temptation,  but  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  life  to  come — what  advantasres  would  be  secured  to  us 
by  forsaking  the  ark  of  spiritual  salvation  in  which  we  enjoy  the 
happy  certainty  of  faith,  the  concord  of  union  in  belief  with  our 
brethren,  the  evidence  of  being  under  the  guidance  of  those  who 
have  been  successively  sent,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  and  of 
Clii’ist,  to  extend  to  all  nations  and  to  prolong  through  all  time  the 
preaching  of  His4ruths,  the  works  of  Ilis  ministry,  and  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  His  merits  on  the  Cross.  What  spiritual  advantage  could 
we  derive  from  the  opinions  so  conflicting  and  so  contradictory 
which  constitute  the  Christianity  of  the  Private  Reasoners?  To 
what  *sect  should  we  attach  ourselves  ?  Which  denomination,  by 
their  own  confession,  is  superior  to  any  other  ?  What  is  the  char¬ 
acter  of  their  ministry  ?  Who  ordained  them  ?  And  by  what 
right  ?  Who  gave  them  their  mission  ?  Who  sent  them  when  they 
wei'e  ordained  ?  These  are  questions  which  if  “  Kirwan,”  or  any  one 
else  among  them  can  answer,  will  do  more  to  convert  the  poor  be¬ 
nighted  Catholics  than  a  hundred  descriptions  of  St.  Patrick’s  well, 
or  other  objects  of  popular  devotion,  perhaps  superstition,  in  the 
remote  districts  of  otherwise  oppressed,  ruined,  but  still  Catholic, 
faithful  Ireland. 


LETTER  VIII. 

Dear  Reader : 

72.  It  does  not  fall  within  the  purpose  of  these  letters  to  enter 
into  any  extended  minuteness  of  detail  on  the  questions  involved  be¬ 
tween  the  Church  and  those  who  are  separated  from  her  Commun¬ 
ion.  Accordingly  you  must  have  perceived  that  certain  topics  have 
been  rather  stated  than  proved,  rather  glanced  at  than  discussed  and 
exhausted.  Nevertheless,  you  will  find  that,  without  the  encum¬ 
brance  of  multiplied  and  learned  quotations,  the  'pith  of  the  matter 
has  been  brought  out,  on  the  subject  treated  of  in  the  preceding 
letters.  That  the  facts  and  reasonings  contained  in  them  will  be 
called  in  question,  and  denied,  by  some  of  the  Private  Reasoners,  is 
quite  probable.  The  indxA’iduals  who  will  stand  forth  from  their 
broken  ranks  for  this  purpose,  will  trust  less  to  their  success  in  re¬ 
futing  either,  than  in  their  appeals  to  your  anti-Catholic  ])rejudices 
of  education.  When  this  comes  to  pass,  do  not  be  troubled  ;  or  if 
you  be  troubled,  })ray.  Appeal  from  both  sides  to  God  and  His 
Holy  Spirit.  Ask  for  light,  ask  for  direction,  ask  for  interior  guid¬ 
ance,  from  the  Divine  Source  of  all  truth.  Ask  in  that  spirit  of 
high  Christian  disinterestedness,  which  puts  this  world  aside  in  such 
important  questions,  and  then  follow  the  light  which  God  will  shed 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


623 


upon  your  soul,  turning  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left  ftom 
worldly  considerations.  This  you  are  bound  to  do,  and  I  ask  no 
more. 

73.  The  explanation  of  this  warfare  between  the  Church  and 
those  separated  from  her  Communion,  is  this.  At  the  birth  of  the 
several  denominations  of  Private  Reasoners,  those  Avho  brought 
them  forth,  not  in  the  Lord,  attempted  to  justify  their  proceeding. 
Scripture  Avas  perAmrted  by  bringing  it  doAvn  to  the  tribunal  of  indi¬ 
vidual  judgment ;  and  learned  men,  now  fallen  from  tlie  faith, 
Avorked  out  injurious,  plausible,  and  pride-flattering  opinions,  from 
the  inspired  text.  VieAved  in  the  abstract,  there  was  no  reason  why 
these  opinions  might  not  be  as  true  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
AALich  they  expressly  contradicted  and  opposed  ;  and  the  system  of 
the  Private  Reasoners  required  that  they  should  be  viewed  exclu¬ 
sively  in  the  abstract.  To  this  Avas  exhibited,  in  reply,  the  practical 
teaching  of  the  Church,  during  all  ages  preceding  the  dispute.  But 
the  Private  Reasoners  Avere  not  to  be  outdone  so  easily.  They,  too, 
appealed  to  the  history  of  the  Church,  with  the  same  privilege  of 
making  the  tribunal  of  indiAudual  opinion  (the  incense  of  flattery  of¬ 
fered  to  man’s  natural  pride,  Avith  a  view  of  seducing  him.)  the  ai’- 
biter  of  every  dispute  that  has  taken  place  between  the  Church  and 
the  schismatics  who  violated  her  unity,  or  the  heretics  who  denied 
her  doctrine  from  the  beginning.  Now,  the  events  of  many  centu¬ 
ries  would  furnish,  naturally,  a  vast  deal  of  matter  to  spin  out  dis¬ 
cussions,  and  multiply  Avords  withal,  against  the  Church,  against  the 
Lord,  and  against  Idis  Christ.  This  they  have  done  ;  and  this  they 
Avill  do  again,  even  in  pretending  to  refute  these  letters.  But  I 
think  it  proper  to  observe,  at  the  same  time,  that  there  is  not  a 
single  scriptural  or  historical  objection  Avhich  they  can  bring  against 
Avhat  I  have  said,  or  shall  say,  that  has  not  been  already  urged  and 
refuted.  If  I,  then,  AA'ere  to  multiply  proo/s  on  one  side,  state  and  ' 
refute  objections  on  tJie  other,  I  should  do  two  things — make  this 
Avork  too  unwieldy  for  your  perusal,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  not 
reach  the  author  of  the  objections ;  for,  although  his  pretended  facts 
.  should  prove  to  be  false,  and  his  pretended  reasoning  from  them 
should  prove  to  be  not  only  illogical,  but  absurd,  you  being  a  Pri¬ 
vate  Reasoner  by  system,  or  personal  interest,  he  could  still  take 
refuge  in  his  individual  opinion,  and  say,  “  You  have  not  convinced 
me,  I  am  a  Private  Reasoner  still.”  Thus,  he  could  repeat  the  same 
refuted  allegations  as  often  as  he  pleased.  He  admits  no  judge  but 
himself.  But  besides  all  this,  there  is  not  a  single  topic  of  difler- 
ence  betAveen  the  Catholic  Church  and  those  Avho,  in  modern  times, 
have  strayed  away,  or  beeii  cut  off,  from  her  Communion,  that  is  not 
discussed  and  cleared  up  to  the  satisfaction  of  unprejudiced  minds  ; 
and  to  enter  into  such  a  discussion  in  these  letters,  Avould  be  only  to 
give  out  a  new  edition  of  Avhat  has  already  been  said.  Hence  it  is 
that  I  content  myself  Avith  placing  before  you  a  general  view  of  the 
whole  question,  reserving  special  proof  and  refutation  for  special 
objections,  Avhen  they  shall  have  been  brought  to  a  dose. 


624 


AKCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Y4.  From  what  has  already  been  said,  you  must  begin  to  have 
r-ome  idea  ot“  the  Catholic  Church,  as  she  is  conceived  of  and  under¬ 
stood  by  her  own  children.  You  have  seen  that  in  her  those  who 
are  now  teachers^  were  but  lately  learners,  that  they  are  not  authoi*- 
ized  to  preach  what  they  had  not  been  taught.  That  the  interior 
call  to  the  ministry  could  not  be  availing,'  unless  outwardly  sanc¬ 
tioned,  recognized,  and  approved,  by  the  authority  pre  existing  in 
the  Church.  That  by  virtue  of  this  authority  alone  could  they 
preach,  for  how  could  they  preach  unless  they  were  sent  ?  And 
that  the  commission  conferred  by  this  authority  was  universally  re- 
^'oked,  whenever  any  of  them  undertook  to  preach  what  he  had  not 
learnt.  So  has  it  been  ever  in  the  Church  of  God  ;  and  this  for  the 
obvious  and  fundamental  reason  to  which  I  have  more  than  once  al¬ 
luded,  that  the  sum  of  Christian  teaching  is  a  body  of  facts  re¬ 
vealed,  or  confirmed,  by  our  Saviour,  of  which  the  Church  is  the 
witness,  and  of  which  her  ministers  are  appointed  to  bear  testimony. 
But  among  the  Private  Reasoners  all  this  order  is  reversed.  There 
are  no  learners,  there  are  no  teachers.  There  is  no  mission,  except 
of  a  modern  and  purely  human  character  ;  there  are  no  orders  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  except  such  as  mere  human  authority 
could  give  ;  there  is  no  standard  of  orthodoxy,  except  a  human  sym¬ 
bol,  imposed  through  a  direct  violation  of  their  first  j^rinciple,  which 
proclaims  the  “  Bible  alone”  as  their  rule  of  faith  ;  there  is  no  inde¬ 
pendence  in  their  ministry,  for  if  they  do  not  please  those  whom  it 
should  have  been  their  duty  to  instruct  and  teadi,  they  are  dismissed 
like  other  public  servants  ;  there  is  no  responsibility,  except  to  what¬ 
ever  may  happen  to  range,  for  the  time  being,  as  the  majority,  or  at 
least  the  average  agreements,  of  opinion  in  the  congregations  they 
address.  See  what  a  chasm  of  ditference  all  this  makes  between 
them  .and  C.atholics  ! 

75.  In  the  organization  of  the  Church  our  Redeemer  did  not  vary 
in  principle  from  the  order  established  by  Heaven  for  the  soci.al 
existence  and  well-being  of  the  human  race.  The  organic  exercise 
of  sovereign  power  and  authority,  whether  in  the  family  or  in  the 
'civil  state,  is  narrowed  down  both  by  Divine  and  human  institutions, 
from  its  widest  range  and  extent  to  smaller  and  yet  smaller  circles, 
until  they  reach  a  centre  in  some  one  individual.  Thus  the  father 
is  the  head  and  centre  of  the  family,  representing  the  tmity  of  do¬ 
mestic  government.  Thus  the  Mayor  is  the  head  and  centre  of 
municipal  authority  in  the  city.  Thus  the  Governor,  in  the  State. 
Thus  the  President,  as  the  head  and  centre  of  the  United  States, 
represents  the  concentrated  power  of  the  confederation  in  its  essen¬ 
tial  form  of  unity.  If  this  principle,  as  directly  ordained  in  the  fam¬ 
ily,  by  the  appointment  of  God  himself,  and  as  indirectly  at  least, 
sanctioned  in  the  civil  state,  be  so  necessary  that  society  could  not 
be  held  together  without  it,  it  would  be  strange  if  our  Blessed 
Saviour  left  his  Church  exposed  to  the  anarchy  by  which  the  ab¬ 
sence  of  it  could  not  have  failed  to  introduce. 

The  grand  idea  of  the  Church,  as  proposed  by  her  Divine  Foun- 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


625 


der,  was  to  unite  all  manldud  in  one  brotherhood  of  a  common  faith, 
a  common  hope,  and  a  common  charity,  mutually  held  together  in 
the  most  intimate  communion  of  those  spiritual  attections  which 
religion  creates  in  the  soul.  But  such  a  society  could  not  exist 
without  some  supreme  individual  head  and  centre,  as  the  represen¬ 
tative  of  its  unity  and  power ;  and  it  is  singular  that  the  very  name 
given  to  the  Siu)reme  visible  head  of  the  Church  expresses  the 
proper  relation  to  such  Chiastian  brotherhood  ;  since  he  is  not  called 
King,  or  Emperor,  or  President,  but  Pope  or  Father. 

76.  As  successor  to  one  of  the  Apostles,  beds  simply  Bishop  of 
Pome.  As,  however,  that  Apostle  was  not  merely  one  of  the 
twelve,  but  Peter,  the  first  and  chief  of  the  Apostolic  body,  so  the 
Bishop  of  Pome  iias  ever  exercised  the  prerogatives  of  the  common 
Father,  and  the  universal  Primate  of  the  Catholic  Church.  He  is 
the  visible  centre  of  the  Unity.  The  visible  Head  of  her  commun¬ 
ion  ;  her  supreme  visible  Ruler  upon  earth.  The  other  BisL^^s  of 
the  Church  are  no  less  of  the  Apostolic  order  tha?n  he  ;  but  inasmuch 
as  St.  l*eter  alone  was  invested  with  power  and  commission  which 
had  not  been  given  to  any  other  Ajiostle  individually,  or  to  them  all 
collectively ;  inasmuch  as  to  Peter  alone  the  care  of  the  entire  flock 
of  Christ  had  been  committed  ;  inasmuch  as  Our  Lord  had  prayed 
for  him  alone,  that  his  faith  should  not  fail,  and  commanded  him 
alone,  l)eing  once  converted,  to  confirm  his  brethren  ;  inasmuch  as 
in  language  like  this,  Peter  alone  was  divinely  ordained  the  supreme 
Pastor  on  earth  of  the  Christian  fold ;  inasmuch  as  the  unity  and 
authority  of  the  Church,  extended  throughout  the  Avoiid,  required 
for  its  organization  and  exercise  some  individual  supremacy ;  that 
function  has  always  been  claimed,  and  always  been  exercised,  by 
the  successors  of  St.  Peter  alone.  This  supremacy  of  the  Pope  is  as 
much  an  article  of  Christ’s  revelation,  an  article  of  Divine  faith,  in 
the  one  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  as  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Blessed  Trinity. 

77.  We  see  in  this  economy  the  wisdom  and  the  goodness  of  our 
Blessed  Redeemer.  For  by  it  the  Chui’ch  is  provided  with  a  su¬ 
preme  authority,  exercised  under  Divine  appointment,  and  guaran¬ 
tied  by  Divine  and  infallible  promises.  Without  it  the  Unity  of  the 
one  sheepfold,  under  the  one  Shepherd,  could  not  be  maintained. 
Without  it  the  believing  people  of  Christ’s  fold  could  not  be  preserved 
from  the  doctrinal  errors  which  apostate  or  heretical  bishops  might 
introduce  and  impose  on  them,  as  the  very  teachings  of  their  Saviour. 
Without  it,  in  the  absence  of  responsibility,  the  rite  essential  for  the 
ordination  of  priests  and  the  consecration  of  Bishops  might  be  disre¬ 
garded.  ATithout  it,  as  we  see  in  England,  a  Prime  Minister,  even 
though  he  should  be  himself  an  infidel,  (which  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  is  the  case  at  present,)  would  become  the  source,  necessa¬ 
rily  the  barren  source,  of  spiritual  power  and  jurisdiction  to  persons 
still  calling  themselves  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  God.  Without  it, 
thp  Episcopal  body  would  soon  be  divided  among  themselves,  and 
preach  in  opposition  to  one  another,  even  as  is  the  case  among  the 

40 


620 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Private  Reasoners.  Without  it  an  Arias  would  have  triumphed 
over  an  Athanasius ;  and  the  great  Confessor  of  Alexandria  would 
have  been  crushed  by  the  fiictions  of  heresy  which  his  zeal  for  the 
truth  had  caused  to  rise  against  him.  Without  it  the  principle  of 
local  majorities  would  enable  Bishops  to  tyrannize  over  minorities ; 
and  in  the  wantonness  of  irresponsible  power,  which  .that  principle 
secures  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  enable  them  to  degrade  and  tram|)]e 
upon  their  weak  and  erring  broth.er,  leaving  him  without  appeal,  with¬ 
out  resource  or  remedy  ;  an  object  of  scorn  and  of  scoffing  for  the  pro¬ 
fane;  an  object  of  pity  and  commiseration  for  the  virtuous.  With¬ 
out  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  in  short,  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
would  degenerate  into  mere  human  opinions ;  the  government  of 
the  Church  into  every  species  of  anarchy,  tyranny,  and  confusion. 

78.  Our  Blessed  Lord,  no  doubt,  could  have  organized  Ilis 
Church  on  different  principles,  and  could  have  provided  for  its  safety 
and  perpetuation  according  to  whatever  principle  He  might  have 
adopted.  On  the  principle  of  the  Private  Reasoners,  the  idea  of  a 
Supreme  Pastor,  in  the  government  of  what  they  call  the  Church, 
would  1*8  a  supreme  absurdity  ;  and  as  they  are  very  wise,  in  their 
ov.m  estimation,  they  no  doubt,  look  upon  Catholics  as  singularly 
blind  in  not  regarding  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  as  they  do.  The 
authority  of  the  Pope,  however,  does  not  result  from  tlie  advan¬ 
tages  which  the  recognition  of  it  secures  to  the  Catholic  Church ; 
but  it  results  from  the  authority  of  Christ,  delegated  to  St.  Peter, 
individually  in  the  first  instance,  and  through  him  to  his  legitimate 
successors  in  all  ages.  It  is  a  portion  of  His  Divine  revelation  to 
man.  It  is  His  institution,  as  a  pai-t,  an  integral  part  of  the  Church 
which  He  founded,  to  which  all  other  institutions  had  an  essential 
reference,  and  without  which  they  would  have  been  not  only  in¬ 
complete,  but  also  ineffective.  Now,  as  a  historical  fact,  it  is  beyond 
all  controversy  that  the  Bishoi)S  of  Rome  have,  in  all  ages  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  been  acknowledged  by  their  cotemporaries,  as  the  certain 
and  legitimate  successoi's  of  St.  Peter.  Nor  should  it  be  over¬ 
looked  by  you  as  something,  which  attests  to  Catholics  the  es¬ 
pecial  protection  of  God  to  the  line  of  that  succession,  that  the 
other  Episcopal  Sees,  founded  by  the  Apostles,  have,  in  the  revolu¬ 
tions  of  the  world,  disappeared,  that  all  possibility  of  identifying 
the  Episcopal  succession  as  derived  from  any  other  one  of  the 
twelve  in  particular,  has  passed  away,  whilst  that  founded  by  St. 
Peter  still  remains,  and  tlie  direct  succession  of  the  principality 
which  Christ  conferred  upon  him,  in  the  government  of  the  wdiole 
Church,  has  descended  from  one  to  another,  in  the  line  of  his  suc¬ 
cessors,  name  by  name,  with  as  much  regularity  as  is  discoverable 
in  the  liistory  of  any  temporal  sovereignty  in  the  world.  Neither 
is  this  order  disturbed  by  the  rivalship  of  different  claimants  which 
sometimes  scandalized  the  Church.  All  recognized,  even  then,  the 
supremacy  of  Peter,  in  the  legitimate  successors  of  his  Apostle- 
ship  ;  and  the  only  question,  was  a  question  of  fact,  which  further 
evidence  never  failed,  ultimately,  to  determine. 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


627 


S' 9.  As  I  liave  remarked  already,  it  does  not  fall  within  tlwj  pur 
pose  of  these  letters  to  collect  the  historical  testimonies  by  which 
the  sujiremacy  of  the  Holy  See  is  established,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
in  the  several  ages  which  have  elapsed  since  the  origin  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  And  I  can  the  more  willingly  omit  such  testimonies,  as  a 
work  expressly  devoted  to  this  subject,  from  the  pen  of  the  learned 
Catholic  Bishop  of  Philadelphia,  is  announced  as  being  now  in 
press.  It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  state  that  I  am  not  acquainted 
with  any  period  of  time  in  which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not 
exercise  powers  wdiich  are  utterly  inexplicable,  except  on  the  hy¬ 
pothesis  of  his  acknowledged  supremacy  whether  that  word  was  in 
use  to  express  that  power  or  not.  From  the  very  beginning  we  find 
him  interfering,  to  use  an  expressive  term,  in  matters  which,  if 
right,  would  seem  to  belong  to  the  other  Bishops  complaining  of 
the  interference,  or  denying  his  right  to  take  cognizance  of  what 
was  going  on  in  the  several  portions  of  the  Church  subject  to  his 
jurisdiction.  It  is  true  that  remonstrances  have  been  sometimes 
addressed  to  him  by  other  Bishops,  but  always  in  the  respectful 
and  deferential  language  due  to  superior  authority,  and  what  is 
most  remarkable  is,  that  these  remonstrances  never  questioned 
the  substance  of  his  right  to  interfere,  but  always  had  reference  to 
the  form,  or  some  incidental  circumstance  of  that  interference.  I 
find  in  all  ages  that  his  interference  w^as  invoked  and  appealed  to  as 
the  sovereign  by  wliich  alone,  the  evils  and  disorders  that  afflicted 
the  Church,  to  the  furthest  bounds  of  Christendom,  might  be 
healed,  or  removed.  I  find  that  whilst,  in  the  earlier  ages,  the  first 
or  the  primitive  Christians,  and  his  own  humility  may  have  ren¬ 
dered  it  unnecessary  and  inexpedient  to  define,  either  in  speech  or 
in  writing,  the  extent,  '  r  the  nature  of  the  supremacy,  which,  as 
the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  he  was  charged  witli,  he  exercised  never¬ 
theless,  whenever  the  occasion  required,  the  jioAver  Avhich  that  word 
implies.  I  find  Nestorius  appealing  to  him,  in  the  Fifth  Century,  on 
behalf  of  his  new  doctrine,  just  as  Luther  did,  in  support  of  his, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Sixteenth ;  and  we  may  reasonably  con¬ 
clude,  that  if  he  had  not  condemned  the  errors  of  both,  neither  of 
Av-hoin  Avould  ever  have  denied  his  supremacy.  I  find  that  in  all 
ages  the  blessed  Apostle,  St.  Peter,  Avas  regarded  and  spoken  of,  as 
having  been  distinguished  from  the  other  Apostles  by  special  and 
peculiar  honors  and  prerogatives  which  the  Divine  Master  con¬ 
ferred  on  him  alone. 

80.  Thus  the  eA’angelist  St.  MattheAV :  “  Simon  Peter  ansAvering 
said  :  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  And  Jesus  an- 
SAvering,  said  to  him :  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-Jona  ;  because  flesh 
and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heav’en. 
And  I  say  to  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter :  and  upon  this  rock  I 
Avill  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it.  And  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heave*n. 
And  Avhatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also 
in  heaven  :  and  Avhatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed 


628 


AECHBISIIOP  HUGHES. 


« 

also  in  heaven.”  St.  Matthew,  xvi.  16,  19.  What  is  here  narrated 
by  the  inspired  writer  had  taken  place  several  years  before.  It  is 
not  the  record  of  the  text  that  gave  this  prerogative  to  the  chief  of 
the  Apostles,  but  i't  is  recorded  as  a  historical  fact  which  had  taken 
place  in  the  life  and  m’inistry  of  Our  Divine  Redeemer,  You  per¬ 
ceive  that  it  has  reference  to  P'eter  alone.  What  does  it  mean  ? 
The  answer  to  this  question  Catholics  have  ever  had,  and  have,  in  the 
teaching  and  practice  of  the  Church.  The  answer  to  this  they 
would  have  had,  whether  St.  Matthew  had  written  his  Gospel  or  not. 
Again,  we  find  in  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  St.  Luke,  that  when 
Satan  desired  to  have  the  Apostles,  that  he  might  sift  them  as 
wheat.  Our  Divine  Saviour  prayed,  but  the  prayer,  as  the  text  re¬ 
marks,  was  for  Peter  alone,  as  if  in  his  safety  there  was  security  for 
them  all.  Had  this  conduct  and  language  of  Our  Blessed  Saviour 
no  meaning  ?  If  it  had  not,  Avhy  was  it  employed  ?  If  it  had, 
what  else  could  it  be,  than  what  the  Church  has  ever  taught  upon  the 
s-ubject?  Again  still,  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  St.  John,  after 
our  Saviour’s  resurrection,  twice  does  He  command  Peter  to  feed  the 
sheep  of  His  fold.  Thus  Peter  alone  was  made  the  shepherd  of  the 
entire  flock,  and  in  this  was  fulfilled  what  Christ  had  elsewhere  said 
in  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  John  :  “And  other  sheep  I  have  that 
.are  not  of  this  fold  ;  them  also  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my 
voice ;  and  there  shall  be  made  one  fold  and  one  shepherd.”  I 
might  call  your  attention  to  many  other  passages  of  the  Sacred 
Writing,  in  which  the'  pre-eminence  and  primacy  of  St.  Peter  are 
most  distinctly  recorded.  But  these  will  be  sufiicient,  and  especially 
taken  in  connection  with  the  Avhole  history  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
in  which,  de  facto  as  well  as  de  jure,  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  have 
always  exercised  the  primacy  and  pre-eminence  thus  conferred  on 
him,  with  the  universal  approbation  of  the  Church,  and  without  a 
reclamation,  except  from  the  Private  Reasoners  of  the  different 
ages,  whose  heterodox  opinions  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Popes,  both 
as  the  supreme  guardian  of  the  fixith,  and  as  the  official  organ  of  the 
Church,  to  condemn  and  anathematize. 


LETTER  IX. 

Dear  Reader  : 

81.  The  whole  of  this  subject  of  the  Church,  certainly  the  most 
important  in  the  entire  range  of  Christian  theology,  may  after  what 
has  already  been  said,  be  comprised  in  a  few  paragraphs.  The 
great  difterence  between  Catholics  and  Private  Reasoners  is  this ; 
the  former  naturally,  and  by  the  institutions  of  Christ,  look  for  the 
truth  of  revelation  in  and  through  that  visible  Society  of  men  origi¬ 
nally  receiving  it  from  Him,  and  perpetuated  with  a  moral  identity 
of  continuation,  until  the  present  day.  The  Private  Reasoners,  on 
the  other  hand  discard  society  altogether,  and  seek  for  the  truths  of 
religion  without  intervention,  prepared  to  build  \ip  what  they  call 


LETl’ERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


G29 


a  Ohuich  formed  from  tlie  results  of  their  individual  private  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Holy  Scriptures.  The  Church  of  God  on  earth  is 
composed  of  men,  but  to  these  men  Christ  imparted  the  deposit 
of  eternal  truth,  with  command  to  preserve,  and  authority  to  prop¬ 
agate  the  same  until  the  end  of  the  world.  Now  Catholics  know, 
as  well  as  Private  Reasoners,  that  men,  as  such,  are  fallible  ;  but, 
they  do  not  suppose,  with  Private  Reasoners  that  the  fallibility  of 
man’s  nature  is  to  triumph  over  the  wisdom  and  the  power  of 
Christ  in  the  preservation  and  pei-petuation  of  those  saving  truths 
which  were  originally  communicated  by  Him  for  the  salvation  of 
the  world,  and  the  knowledge  and  certainty  of  which  were  as 
essential  to  all  generations,  as  they  were  to  that  in  which  He  spoke 
and  taught. 

82.  Remark  accordingly ;  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  early 
Cjiristiau  writers,  in  their  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  Our  Saviour, 
constantly  point  to  the  Society  that  had  received  those  doctrines,  and 
never,  at  least,  in  a  sense,  that  would  exclude  the  Society,  to  the 
doctrines  themselves  in  the  abstract.  The  principle  involved  in  this 
mode  of  reference  is  analogous  to  that  by  which  one  would  reach 
the  soul  of  some  fellow-being.  Man  is  so  constituted  that  he  can 
take  cognizance  of  the  body  in  which  it  dwells,  but  not  of  the  spirit 
itself,  except  through  its  manifestations  in  the  body.  Now,  the  in¬ 
spired  written  Word  of  God  frequently  designates  the  Church  as  the 
Body  of  Christ,  as  if  to  adopt  the  great  institution  of  His  Spiritual 
kingdom  of  the  earth  to  the  actual  condition  of  our  nature,  so  that 
we  may  not,  like  the.  Private  Reasoners,  be  as  children  tossed  to  and 
fro,  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,  looking  for  the  Spirit ;  but  that  see¬ 
ing  the  b»dy  around  us,  and  in  the  midst  of  us,  wherever  the 
Church  is  found,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun,  we  may 
there  find,  with  certainty,  what  they  seek  for  elsewhere  in  vain. 
'vVhere  the  Body  of  Christ  is,  there  is  His  Spirit,  there  are  His 
promises,  there  is  His  doctrine ;  and  as  the  soul  in  man  manifests 
itself  through  corporal  faculties,  so  also  the  truth,  and  the  teaching, 
and  the  knowledge  of  God,  as  the  soul  of  the  Church,  exhibit  them¬ 
selves  in  a  sensible  manner  through  the  organic  faculties  of  this, 
Christ’s  Mystical  Body.  The  Church’s  manner  of  teaching  is  hu¬ 
man,  and  such  also  was  the  manner  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the 
Saviour,  by  whom  she  has  been  founded  ;  but  this  is  only  her  earthly 
phase ;  this  is  only  the  process  of  bringing  out  to  the  visible  world 
the  Divine  light  once  kindled,  and  now  inextinguishable  in  her 
conscientiousness  and  in  her  intelligence.  The  medium,  if  you 
please,  dims,  in  the  transition,  the  brightness  of  the  heavenly 
illumination  which  it  transmits ;  but  it  is  fitted  and  adapted  to  the 
tbebleuess  of  human  vision,  so  that  when  the  eye  of  the  mind  comes 
to  rest  upon  the  awful  mysteries  which  the  Church  teaches,  the 
economy  of  God’s  institution  is  such  that  the  brightness  does  not 
overwhelm  us.  Men  live  and  move  in  the  light  of  day,  but  it  comes 
to  their  sight  reflected  and  not  by  direct  beams,  as  if  their  eyes 
were  strong  to  encounter  the  glare  of  the  noon-day  sun. 


G30 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


83.  The  Church  is  composed,  therefore,  of  two  parts ;  the  one 
representing  the  Body  of  Chidst,  the  other  His  Souh  Inasmuch  aa 
this  Body  is  composed  of  men,  it  is  human  ;  but  inasmucli  as  it  is 
animated  by  the  Spirit  of  Him  whose  Body  it  is,  the  Church  is 
Divine.  She  proceeds  in  all  her  official  acts,  either  in  determining 
the  truth  that  God  committed  to  her  keeping,  or  in  condemning  the 
error  specially  opposed  to  any  portion  of  that  truth,  in  a  two  fold 
manner.  The  first  decision  which  she  ever  gave,  in  her  corporate 
capacity,  is  that  recorded  in  the  ■  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  Apostles’ 
Acts  ;  when  some  “coming  down  from  Judea,  taught  the  brethren 
that  except  you  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  you  cannot  be  saved.”  Here  was  a  small  specimen  of 
what  we  have  called  Priv.ate  Reasoning.  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  present,  and  for  a  moment  involved  in  the  discussion.  But 
instead  of  deciding  the  question,  either  by  appealing  to  the  Bible, 
or  to  the  authority  of  inspiration,  which  St.  Paul  undoubtedly  pos¬ 
sessed,  the  matter  is  referred  to  the  Church  in  the  aggregate  of  her 
prerogative.  This  is  the  proceeding  according  to  the  human  form 
of  the  Body  of  the  Church.  Statements  and  counter-statements 
having,  no  doubt,  been  observed,  and  jiains  taken,  after  the  human 
manner,  to  sift  out  from  extraneous  matter,  the  true  and  precise  prop¬ 
osition  on  which  a  decision  was  solicited.  This  done,  the  Church  is 
about  to  pronounce,  and  Peter,  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  utters 
the  decision  also  in  a  human  manner,  but,  at  the  same  time,  with  a 
direct  leaning  on  the  Divine  and  invisible  element  which  constitutes 
the  source  of  her  eternal  in'errency.  “  And  when  there  had  been 
much  disputing,  Peter,  rising  up,  said  to  them :  IVIy  brethren,  you 
know  that  in  former  days  God  made  choice  among  us,  that  by  my 
mouth  the  Gentiles  should  hear  the  word  of  the  Gospel,  and  be¬ 
lieve.  And  God  who  knoweth  the  hearts,  gave  testimony,  giving 
ur.to  them  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  to  us.  And  put  no  diflerence 
between  us  and  them,  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith.  Now  there¬ 
fore  why  tempt  you  God,  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  necks  of  the 
disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  have  been  able  to  bear  ? 
But  by  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  we  believe  to  be  saved, 
in  like  manner  as  they  also.  And  all  the  multitude  held  their 
peace.” — Acts  xv.  7-12. 

This  may  be  I’egarded  as  the  preamble,  or  introduction  to  the 
final  sentence  which  the  Church  was  about  to  pronounce.  But 
when  that  sentence  is  to  be  uttered,  you  perceive  that  it  is  not 
men  alone,  since,  in  the  28th  verse  we  read,  “For  it  hath  seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us  to  lay  no  further  burden,”  etc. 

84.  This  example,  which  is  recorded  in  the  inspired  volume, 
must  necessarily  have  taken  place  in  the  practice  of  the  Church,  an¬ 
terior  to  its  being  committed  to  writing.  The  Church  has  never 
deviated  from  the  practical  rule  here  laid  down  by  her  founders. 
At  whatever  period  error  appeared  and  was  advocated,  so  that  any 
portion  of  the  Church  of  Christ  was  liable  to  be  led  from  the  faith, 
by  its  delusiveness,  the  Church,  either  by  the  assembling  of  the  na- 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


631 


tions  under  tlie  primacy  of  Peter ;  or  by  the  mouth  of  Peter,  in  the 
person  of  his  successors,  employed  diligence  to  investigate  and  study 
more  thorouglily  the  relations  of  the  primitive  doctrine  on  the  ques¬ 
tion  agitated,  as  also  of  the  error  opposed  to  that  doctrine,  and  all 
this  in  tlie  human  manner;  but  when,  finally,  the  sentence  was  to 
be  pronounced,  discriminating  between  the  article  which  was  of 
faith,  and  the  new  heretical  proposition,  the  judgment  was  always 
substantially  uttered  in  the  same  language  :  it  hath  seemed  good 
to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us.  After  the  sentence  was  pronounced, 
there  was  no  excuse  for  those  who  forsook  the  Church  and  attached 
themselves  to  the  Private  Reasoners  of  the  several  ages  that  have 
since  elapsed.  And  as  the  human  body,  when  in  a  sound  and 
healtliy  condition,  drives  forth  the  noxious  humors,  and  repels  the 
infections  that  would  taint  it,  so  the  Church,  by  God’s  appointment, 
economized  the  fullness  of  its  interior  life,  by  removing  all  the  ex¬ 
crescences  of  private  error,  which  would  at  once  have  deformed 
its  comeliness  and  wasted  the  resources  of  its  spiritual  health,  if 
they  had  been  allowed  to  adhere  to  it.  They  might  live,  or  seem 
to  live^.  for  a  little  while  by  the  power  of  their  great  communion 
with  her.  But  presently  disputes  among  themselves,  errors  more 
extravagant  than  these  first  thought  of — division  and  sub-division 
among  tliem  gave  manifest  evidence  that  in  leaving  the  Church,  they 
carried  forth  with  them  no  perennial  fountain  of  spiritual  vitality. 
So  it  was  with  the  Judaisers  mentioned  in  the  text;  so  with  the 
Ebionites  and  the  Nazareaus;  so  with  the  Gnostics,  Nicolai- 
tans,  the  Cerinthians,  the  Basilideans,  and  SaturniTiians,  the 
Yalentinians,  the  Carpocratians,  the  Marcionites,  the  Montanists, 
the  Manicheans,  the  Sabellians.,  the  Arians,  the  Nestorians,  the  Eu- 
tychians,  the  Pelagians,  the  Albigenses,  the  Wyckliffeites,  the  Huss¬ 
ites,  not  to  name  thousands  of  other  sects  that  seemed  to  live  a  little 
while,  until  the  remnant  of  vitality  which  they  brought  forth  from 
the  Catholic  Church  was  exhausted.  Whilst  they  seemed  to  flourish 
they  ^vere  actually  fading  away ;  and  so  it  is  now  with  those  who 
have  been  seduced  from  the  Church  by  the  private  reasoning  of 
Calvin,  Luther,  Socinius,  Cranmer,  and  the  others  in  the  land  of  Lu¬ 
ther,  his  followers  have  glided,  almost  unconsciously  to  themselves, 
into  rank  infidelity — wiiilst  they  read  the  Bible,  however,  and  then 
reason  upon  it.  In  the  land  of  Cah  in  it  is  the  same.  In  England 
there  is  a  genteel  conformity  among  the  genteel  people  to  certain 
statutory  forms  of  religion ;  the  ungenteel,  that  in  the  lower  classes, 
remaining  enveloped  in  the  thickest  folds  of  brutal  ignorance  and 
vice.  In  this  country  the  actual  condition  of  Private  Reasoners 
may  be  described  in  four  words;  indifierence  in  part,  fanatacism  in 
part  smaller  still,  with  a  large  portion  of  infidelity  on  one  side,  and 
a  small  counterpoise  of  calm  and  sober  “  religiosity”  on  the  other. 
But  ivhether  you  speak  of  Germany,  Switzerland,  France  or  America, 
the  word  wdiich  expresses  the  general  condition  everywhere  is  com 
fusion!  Confusion!!  Confusion!!!  That  is  to  say,  religious  dis¬ 
agreement,  religious  controversies,  religious  divisions,  to  the  end  of 


632 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


the  cliaptcv.  Such  is  tlie  harvest  which  the  enemy  of  truth  is  reap¬ 
ing  from  the  labors  of  those  who  were  separated  from  the  Church  in 
the  Sixteeutli  Century. 

85.  It  is  a  great  relief  to  the  mind  to  turn  away  from  this  melan¬ 
choly  state  of  things  among  the  Private  Reasoners  to  the  calm, 
steady,  and  uniform  course  of  the  Church  for  a  period  of  more  than 
eighteen  hundred  years.  She  sends  the  same  message  of  salvation 
to  the  east  and  to  the  west,  to  the  north  and  the  south,  until  she 
shall  have  delivered  it  to  all  nations,  and  have  imbued  with  its 
heavenly  meaning  the  hearts  of  all  people,  and  tribes,  and  nations. 
When  individuals,  or  even  mighty  nations  with  their  rulers,  prove 
themselves  unworthy  of  such  an  inheritance,  she  cuts  them  oft',  be 
they  prelates,  kings,  nobles,  or  peasants.  She  knows  no  distinction, 
and  when  such  interests  are  involved,  she  has  no  consciousness 
of  fear,  no  calculations  of  the  contingencies  of  futurity.  Nor  is  it 
necessary  that  the  cause  should  involve  the  denial  of  all  her  doc¬ 
trines.  It  is  enough  that  any  one  doctrine  of  the  deposit  of  Christ’s 
revelation  should  be  obstinately  denied,  to  entail  that  sentence  by 
which  the  infected  member  shall  be  separated  from  her  commu¬ 
nion.  If  by  an  extravagant  supposition  of  an  impossible  contin¬ 
gency,  all  the  Bishops  of  France,  Germany,  and  Italy,  should 
deny  obstinately  any  one  doctrine  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
she  would  excommunicate  them  with  greater  pain,  but  with  as  little 
reservation  as  if  they  were  but  as  Rouge  in  Germany,  or  “  Kirwan” 
among  ourselves.  On  the  other  hand,  while  she  is  animated  with 
the  most  ardent  and  tender  zeal  for  the  gathering  of  souls  into  the 
fold  of  Clirist,  she  could  not  abate  one  jot  or  tittle  of  her  doctrine 
to  secure  the  return  of  the  nations  that  have  fallen  from  her  faith, 
or  the  conversion  of  the  whole  v\^orld.  If  she  were  capable  of  doing 
the  one  or  the  other,  she  would  not  be  the  Church  that  Jesus  Christ 
established  on  the  earth. 

86.  These  remarks,  however,  apply  only  to  the  deposits  of  faith 
over  Avliich  she  has  no  control,  except  tliat  of  Divinely  apjDointed 
guardian,  witness,  and  unerring  expositor.  Here  is  the  distinction 
in  the  Church  betwixt  matters  that  are  of  originial  and  Divine 
authority,  and  those  which  result  from  ecclesiastical  legislation. 
Tiie  Church  had  a  right  to  arrange  the  outward  fo.rni  of  her  self- 
government  according  to  the  exigency  of  times  and  of  circum¬ 
stances.  Certainly,  when  she  offered  the  Holy  Sacrifice  of  her  liturgy 
at  the  tombs  of  martyrs  in  the  Catacombs  and  hiding  places  of 
Pagan  Rome,  she  did  not  appear  to  outward  vision  the  same  as 
■vv'hen  she  performs  her  symbolic  rights  surrounded  by  the  iiom])  and 
magnificence — if  any  thing  that  man  can  do  in  the  worship  of  God 
deserves  to  be  called  magnificent — under  the  mighty  dome  of  St. 
Peter’s.  So,  with  regard  to  all  ecclesiastical  laws  enacted  simply 
by  her  authority ;  so  with  regard  to  her  whole  code  of  canonical 
legislation ;  so  with  regard  to  her  entire  discipline,  so  far  as  it  de¬ 
rives  its  authority  from  her  enactments — it  is  manifest  in  all  these 
matters,  that  the  same  power  which  enacted  the  law,  has  the  right, 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 


633 


in  certain  given  cases,  to  dispense  with  its  observation,  or  if  the  ex 
igency  required,  to  abrogate  it  altogether.  The  Church,  herself  as 
the  witness,  and  the  doctrines  received  by  her  from  Christ  and  His 
Apostles,  constitute,  together,  the  things  of  which  testimony  is  to 
be  borne  and  the  witness  who  is  to  testify.  These  are  unchangeable ; 
these  are  indestructible ;  these  are  infallible.  Infallible  truths  revealed 
by  the  Son  of  God,  and  an  infallible  witness  and  teacher  of  them 
until  the  end  of  time.  And  hence  nothing  that  has  occurred  in  this 
world  since  the  days  of  Christ  and  Ilis  Apostles  can  be  made  the 
foundation  of  any  article  of  Divine  faith  in  the  Communion  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

87.  W e  cannot  help  smiling,  therefore,  when  writers  so  ignorant, 
wr  so  erudite  as  “  Kirwan,”  impute  to  us  the  belief  of  the  Catholic 
faith  on  account  of  any  miracles  that  have  or  may  have  taken  place  in 
the  Church,  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Every  Catholic  believes 
that  many  miracles  have  occurred.  He  believes  that  in  the  Church 
there  is  an  abiding  promise,  through  which  God  does  manifest  his 
power,  according  to  the  faith  of  individual  members,  when  and  in 
what  manner  he  pleases.  But  if  you  ask  whether  any  Catholic  is  bound, 
as  a  Catholic,  to  believe  that  this  or  that  other  special  event,  since 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  is,  or  is  not,  a  miracle,  my  answer  is, 
that  he  has  a  right  to  judge  according  to  the  evidences  presented  to 
his  mind.  In  certain  cases,  the  evidence  is  so  strong  that  according 
to  the  ordinary  laws  of  the  human  mind  ho  is  compelled  to  believe. 
But  when  this  does  occur,  his  belief  is  an  act  of  human  or  personal, 
but  necessarily  of  Divine  or  Catholic  faith.  Such  events  being  pos¬ 
terior  in  their  occurrence  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  are  not 
proposed  to  us  as  the  foundation  of  any  one  dogma,  or  article 
of  Divine  belief.  That  many  really  miraculous  events  have  oc- 
eured,  cannot  be  doubted.  That  many  others  pretending  to 
be  miracles,  but  which  were  either  accidental,  or  intentional  illusions 
and  deceptions,  no  one  wishes  to  deny.  On  ail  these  subjects  the 
minds  of  our  Private  Reasoners,  for  tlie  most  part,  when  otherwise 
well  informed,  are  exceedingly  ignorant.  There  are  two  reasons 
for  this.  One  is,  that  naturully  they  do  not  know  what  the  Catho¬ 
lic  feith  is ;  and  the  other,  that  in  their  mode  of  learning  they  are 
sure  to  arrive  at  a  distorted,  false,  confused  and  unreal  idea  of  it. 
It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  give  them  a  knowledge  of  what  the 
Catholic  faith  is,  if  their  minds  were  noiv  i/i  the  neutral  condition 
of  simple  ignorance.  But  as  it  is,  it  would  be  necessary  for  them 
to  have  removed  from  their  imaginations  the  false  ideas  which  a 
systematic  ti'aining  in  tlie  wrong  direction  has  created  in  regard  to 
Catholic  faith.  “  Kirwan,”  however,  is  but  one  of  a  class  infected 
with  the  same  malady.  To  attempt  to  refute  the  nonsense  of  their 
conceptions  is  but  to  aggravate  their  disease.  And  the  only  cure 
for  them  is  information  and  instruction,  which  they  could  find  in 
the  Catholic  catechism. 

88.  Such  ignorance,  among  the  mass  of  Private  Reasoners  is,  to 
some  extent,  excusable,  whilst  it  is  quite  the  reverse  in  those  who 


634 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


set  themselves  up  as  leaders  and  teachers  of  Divine  truth.  How 
will  they  answer  to  God  ?  How  will  they  answer  to  the  souls 
whom  they  undertake  to  guide,  for  such  perversions  in  regard  to  the 
Church  of  Christ,  in  which  alone  is  the  fullness  and  perfection  of 
spiritual  life  ?  They  ought  to  be  acquainted  with  the  writings  of 
the  Christian  Fathers  of  the  early  ages  who  speak  of  the  Churcli,  not 
as  an  imaginary  lantasy  of  an  invisible  Church,  but  of  the  Church 
as  an  outward  Society,  such  as  she  has  been  described  in  these  let- 
ers.  But  if  they  make  it  a  point  to  disregard  Christian  historical  testi¬ 
mony  on  this  subject,  you  at  least,  dear  reader,  should  ])onder  on  the 
meaning  of  tliose  passages  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  referring  to  the 
glorious  institutions  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  For  instance: 

“  In  the  last  days  the  mountain  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  shall  he  prepared  on 
the  top  of  mountains,  and  it  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills  :  and  all  natit^ns  shall 
flow  into  it.” — Isaias  ii.  2. 

“  The  stone  that  struck  the  statue  became  a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole 
earth.  *****  in  the  days  of  those  kingdoms,  the  God  of  Heaven 

will  set  up  a  kingdom  that  shall  never  be  destroyed  :  and  his  kingdom  shall  not  be 
delivered  up  to  another  people:  and  it  shall  break  in  pieces,  and  shall  consume 
all  these  kingdoms,  and  itself  shall  stand  for  ever.” — Daniel  ii.  35. 44. 

“  And  it  shall  oome  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the  house  of 
the  Lord  shall  be  prepared  in  the  top  of  mountains,  and  high  above  the  hills  :  and 
people  shall  flow  into  it.  And  many  nations  shall  come  in  haste,  and  say:  Come,  let 
us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  and  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob :  and 
He  will  teach  us  of  His  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  His  paths ;  for  the  law  shall  go 
forth  out  of  Sion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  out  of  Jerusalem.” — Mich.  iv.  1,  2. 

That  these  passages  are  to  be  understood  of  tlie  Church,  appears 
from  the  allusion  of  Our  Blessed  Saviour,  St.  Matt.  v.  14:  “You 
are  the  light  of  the  world;  a  city  that  is  set  on  a  mountain,  cannot 
be  hid."  So  the  early  Fathers  have  understood  and  spoken  of 
those  passages,  as  referring  to  the  Church. 

89,  From  all  this,  it  is  manifest  that  whoever  would  be  guided 
in  the  way  that  God  had  appointed  must  unite  himself  to  the  visi¬ 
ble  communion  of  the  Church,  otherwise  he  will  come  under  the  de¬ 
scription  given  by  St.  Irenmus,  of  the  Private  Keasoners  of  the 
Second  Century. 

“  All  these  are  very  much  later  than  the  Bishops  to  whom  the  Apostles  deliv¬ 
ered  the  Churches,  and  this  we  have  proved,  with  the  greatest  care,  in  the  third  book. 
Therefore  the  aforesaid  heretics,  because  they  are  blind  to  the  truth,  are  under  the 
necessity  of  wandering  ii-regularly,  first  in  one,  and  then  in  another  path,  and  on 
this  account  the  traces  of  their  doctrines  are  scattered  without  any  uniformity  or 
connections.  But  the  pathway  of  those  who  are  in  the  Church,  circles  the 
whole  universe,  for  it  has  a  firm  tradition  from  the  Apostles,  and  gives  us  to  see 
that  the  faith  of  all  is  one  and  the  same.” — Adv.  llaer.  L.  r.  c.  20. 

This  description  is  quite  applicable  both  to  their  condition  and  to 
that  of  the  Ohuroh  at  the  present  day.  Tlie  Church  is  spread 
through  all  nations.  The  Church  is  a  visible  Society.  The  Church 
is  One,  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic.  The  Church  is  indestructible. 
The  Church  is  infallible,  unless,  indeed,  the  Private  Reasoners  go  sc 
far  as  to  say  that  Christ,  her  Founder,  was  fallible. 

90.  I  can  imagine  some  of  them  saying,  all  is  assertion,  mere  hu¬ 
man  reasoning,  or,  at  best,  authority  of  the  Fathers,  whereas  -wt 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CATHOI-IC  CHURCH. 


635 


want  to  have  Scripture  for  onr  belief.  “To  the  law  and  to  the  tes¬ 
timony,”  is  our  motto.  And  the  Word  of  God  says  to  us,  “  Search 
the  Scriptures.”  I  have  to  remark  that  in  this  last  sentence  it  is  liot 
clear  whether  the  text  should  read,  “  Search  the  Scriptures,”  or 
“You  do  search  the  Scriptures;”  but  in  either  case  the  searching 
the  Scriptures  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  studying  out  any  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Revelation,  but  simply  to  ascertain  and  to  determine  a 
fact,  viz. :  whether  Our  Saviour  was  the  person  spoken  of  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  Messiah,  or  not.  So,  also, 
with  regard  to  the  Church.  The  Scriptures  bear  ample  testimony  as 
to  the  tact  of  her  institution,  of  her  office,  as  the  living  and  unerring 
teacher  of  God’s  Word,  of  her  perpetuity,  and  other  attributes.  In 
all  of  Avhich,  Ave  are  enjoined  to  hear  and  be  taught  by  her  instead 
of  searching  the  Scriptures  for  ourselves.  Thus,  already  in  the 
Apostolic  age,  St.  John,  the  last  of  the  Apostles,  Avrites  in  his  first 
Epistle,  chap.  iv.  1,6: 

“  Dearly  beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits,  whether  they  be 

of  God ;  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world . We 

are  of  God.  lie  that  knoweth  God,  heareih  ue;  he  that  is  not  of  God,  heareth 
us  not.  By  this  we  know  the  Spirit  of  truth  and  the  spirit  of  error.” 

In  Hebrews,  chap.  xiii.  7  and  17  :  “  Remember  yo\ir  Prelates  who  have  spoken 

to  you  the  word  of  God:  considering  well  the  end  of  their  conversation . 

Obey  your  Prelates,  and  be  subject  to  them.  For  they  watch  as  being  to  render 
an  account  of  your  souls.” 

Again  to  Timothy,  Ep.  1,  chap.  iii.  14-15:  “These  things  I  write  to  thee  hoping 
that  1  shall  come  to  thee  shortly.  But  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou  ma3’est  know 
how  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  Church  of 
the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.” 

These  instructions  are  addressed  not  to  the  immediate  disciples  of 
Christ,  but  to  the  dispersed  converts,  Avho  Avere  the  disciples  of  the 
Apostles.  AYhen  their  teachers  Avere  absent,  they  supplied  by 
writing,  in  these  instances,  instructions  Avliich  they  Avpuld  have  given 
by  Avovd  of  mouth,  if  they  had  been  present.  Thus  St.  Paul  writing 
to  the  Ephesians,  chap.  iv.  11-14  : 

“  And  some,  indeed,  began  to  be  Apost^s,  and  some  prophets,  and  others  Evangel¬ 
ists,  and  others  pastors  and  doctors:  for  the  perfection  of  the  Faints,  forthewmrk 
of  the  ministry,  unto  the  edification  of  the  Body  of  Christ :  until  we  all  meet  in 
the  unity  of  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  age  of  the  fullness  of  Christ :  that  henceforth  we  may  be  no 
more  children  tossed  to  and  fro.  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  in 
the  wickedness  of  men,  by  cunning  craftiness,  by  which  they  lie  in  Avait  to  deceive.” 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  chap.  xx.  28 : 

“  Take  heed  to  yourselves  and  to  the  whole  flock  wherein  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
placed  you  Bishops,  to  rule  the  Church  of  God,  which  He  hath  purchased  wiAi 
His  own  blood.”  And,  in  like  manner,  in  chap.  xv.  28-41 :  “  For  it  hath  seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us  to  lay  no  further  burden  upon  you  than  these 
necessary  things . And  he  (Paul)  went  through  Syria  and  Cilicia,  con¬ 

firming  the  Churches,  commanding  them  to  keep  the  precepts  of  the  Apostles  and 
the  ancients.” 

91.  If  Ave  pass  uoav  to  the  primary  authority  of  the  Gospels  them¬ 
selves,  in  wiiich  the  Avords,  not  of  an  Apostle,  but  of  Jesus  Christ 


636 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Himself,  are  recorded,  we  shall  find  such  declarations  as  the  follow¬ 
ing  : 

St.  Matt,  xxviii.  1 8-20 :  “  All  power  is  given  to  Me  in  Heaven  and  in  earth.  Go 
ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what¬ 
soever  I  have  commanded  you :  And  lo,  I  am  with  you  all  days,  even  to  the  con¬ 
summation  of  the  world.”  And  again  : 

Luke  X.  16 ;  “  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  Me ;  and  he  tliat  despiseth  you,  de- 
spiseth  Me ;  and  he  that  despiseth  Me  despiseth  Him  that  sent  Me.”  And  Matt, 
xvi.  18  :  “  And  I  say  to  thee  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  Church,  and  tlie  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.”  Again,  Matt, 
xviii.  17 ;  “And  if  he  will  not  hear  them,  tell  the  Church  ;  and  if  he  will  not  hear 
the  Church,  let  him  be  to  thee  as  the  heathen  and  the  publican.” 

That  the  power  thus  conferred  ^was  intended  for  all  future  time, 
is  evident,  from  St.  John  xiv.  16,  17  : 

“  And  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  He  shall  give  you  another  Paraclete,  that  He 
may  abide  with  you  for  ever.  The  spirit  of  truth  whom  the  world  cannot  receive 
because  it  seeth  Him  not,  nor  knoweth  Him,  but  you  shall  know  Him  because 
He  shall  abide  with  you  and  shall  be  in  you.” 

Innumerable  other  passages  might  be  adduced,  proving  beyond 
all  controversy,  as  a  fact,  the  institutions  of  the  Church  of  God,  as 
an  outward  and  visible  Society,  from  which  alone,  the  truths  of  rev¬ 
elation  ascertained,  in  communion  with  which  alone,  the  individual 
man  is  to  be  incorporated  with  the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ,  to 
receive  light,  and  life,  and  salvation  through  Him.  If  our  Private 
Heasouers  were  sincere  in  pretending  to  take  the  Scriptures  for 
their  rule  of  belief,  these  testimonies  would  be  quite  sufficient  to 
prove  to  them  that  the  Bible,  in  every  page,  directs  them  to  cease 
from  their  wanderings,  and  to  seek  security  in  God’s  One,  Holy, 
Catholic,  and  Apostolic  Church. 


“KIRWAN”  UNMASKED. 

A  REYIEW  OF  “KIRWAN”  IN  SIX  LETTERS,  ADDRESSED  TO  THE  REV. 
NICHOLAS  MURRAY,  D.  D.,  OF  ELIZABETHTOWN,  N.  J.,  BY  THE 
RIGHT  R-EV.  JOHN  HUGHES,  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 

To  ^‘■Kirwan,’’^  alias  ike  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray.^  D.  D.,  of  Elizabethtown,.^ 
New  Jersey : 

Dear  Sir — So  long  as  you  wore  a  mask,  which  no  honest  man 
need  ever  Avear  in  a  free  country  like  this,  I  was  excused,  on  your 
own  admission,  from  any  obligation  to  notice  you.  Now  that  you 
have  cast  it  aside,  I  feel  no  longer  bound  to  adhere  to  my  first 
resolution. 

Your  letters  purport  to  explain  the  reasons  Avhy  you  left  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  and  became  a  Presbyterian.  The  object 
of  mine  will  be  to  review  those  reasons.  If  I  shall  succeed  in  re- 


63'? 


“  KIRWAN  ”  T7XMASKED, 

fating  them,  and  assigning  others  inoi’e  in  accordance  with  the  facts 
of  the  case,  I  will  not  trouble  myself  with  answering  those  in  yoiir 
second  series  under  the  head  of  reasons  why  you  do  not  return.  If 
the  deserters  from  the  American  tiag  in  the  Mexican  campaign, 
(among  whom,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  were  some  Irishmen,)  can  justify 
themselves  for  having  fled  from  the  ranks  of  their  country,  the 
world  will  readily  dispense  with  their  reasons  for  not  returning.  The 
enemy,  no  doubt,  received  them  with  that  mingled  feeling  of  joy  at 
the  treason  and  contempt  for  the  traitor,  which,  on  the  whole,  is 
rather  honorable  than  otherwise  in  the  character  of  human  nature — • 
whilst  the  gallant  army  they  had  forsaken  had  the  consolation  to 
know  that  after  their  departure,  it  contained  in  each  case,  at  least 
one  coward  less  than  before.  But  friends  and  foes  would  take  it 
as  a  matter  of  course  that  such  persons  would  have  good  reasons 
for  not  returning. 

The  Catholic  Church,  however,  has  a  mother’s  heart,  and  not  a 
warrior’s.  If  at  any  time,  moved  by  the  grace  of  God,  you  should 
knock  at  her  gates,  as  a  penitent,  she  would  receive  you  as  such, 
and  rejoice  at  your  restoration.  Considering  the  importance  which 
you  attach  to  your  going  out  from  her  communion,  thirty  years  ago, 
never,  never,  to  return,  you  must  admit  that  she  has  borne  your  ab¬ 
sence  Avith  great  resignation ;  in  fact,  amidst  the  numerous  defec¬ 
tions  from  the  faith  which  loneliness  and  poverty  entail  on  juvenile 
immigrants  and  orphan  boys  of  Irish  and  Catholic  parentage  in  this 
country,  an  individual  case  like  yours  might  easily  have  escaped  her 
notice.  But  you  have  taken  from  her  the  bliss  of  ignorance  in  the 
premises.  “  Kirwan”  tells  her  that  you,  Nicholas  Murray,  now  a 
INesbyterian  clergyman,  gave  her  the  cold  shoulder,  when  you  were 
quite  a  boy,  thirty  years  ago.  Nay,  more  ;  he  says  that  one  of  the 
means  employed  by  her  for  arresting  the  progress  of*sin,  was  by  you 
turned  into  an  opportunity  of  additional  sinning —  “  you  always 
found,”  he  says,  “that  you  could  'ploij  your-  pranks  better  after  con¬ 
fession  than  before.”  .  .  .  This  inward  reading  of  yourself,  at  so 
early  an  age,  should  have  convinced  you  that  already,  and  unknown 
to  yourself,  you  were  a  genuine  Protestant  book,  done  up,  some 
how;,,  by  mistake,  in  Catholic  binding. 

I  honor  the  man  who,  under  his  responsibility  to  God,  has  the 
moral  courage  to  change  his  religion,  when,  after  mature  investiga¬ 
tion,  he  conscientiously  believes  that  he  is  passing  from  error  to 
truth.  It  is  a  great  and  solemn  act.  When  it  is  attended,  as  it 
sometimes  is,  by  the  greatest  sacrifice  of  wmi’ldly  interest,  and  is 
manifestly  done  for  the  soul’s  and  God’s  and  truth’s  sake,  it  be 
comes,  in  my  estimation,  the  most  heroic  and  sublime  act  that  man 
is  capable  of  performing  on  the  earth.  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  always 
insincere  even  when  the  convert  promotes  his  temporal  interests  by 
the  change.  But,  in  the  latter  case,  it  loses  mucli  of  the  influence 
which,  as  an  example,  it  Avould  otherwise  exercise  on  the  public 
mind.  Neither  do  I  regard  it  as  improper  that  he  w'ho  has  ex¬ 
perienced  such  a  change,  should  assign  the  reasons  that  brought  k 


638 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


about.  But  in  assigning  them,  all  serious  men  Avould  expect  that 
they  should  be  good  and  true  reasons.  Now,  I  propose,  in  reply  to 
your  letters,  to  prove  that  the  reasons  assigned  by  you  are  not  good 
reasons  in  themselves,  and  that  even  if  they  were,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  they  found  no  place  in  the  circumstances  of  your  supposed 
conversion  from  “  Popery”  to  Presbyterianism. 

Your  letters,  so  far  as  regards  the  grammatical  construction  of 
phrases,  and  a  correct  and  almost  elegant  use  of  Anglo-Saxon  words, 
are  not  unworthy  of  the  country  which  produced  a  Dean  Swift  or 
a  Goldsmith.  They  are  also  pervaded  by  a  silvery  thread  of  wit, 
which  is  unmistakably  Irish,  but  which  too  often,  in  your  letters, 
runs  into  profanity.  As  a  logician,  you  .are  entitled  to  little  praise. 
As  a  theologian,  even  on  the  Protestant  system,  to  less  still ;  whilst 
as  an  upright,  candid  adversary,  honestly  Laboring  to  overthrow  doc¬ 
trines  believed  to  be  erroneous,  you  can  lay  claim  to  none  whatever. 

Two  things,  at  the  outse.t,  tell  very  badly  against  you.  You  rep¬ 
resent  rne  as  te.aching  a  doctrine  which  I  do  not  believe,  and  yet, 
in  various  unexpected  forms,  you  profess  to  render  me  the  homage 
of  your  respect.  Now,  dear  sii’,  let  me  say,  that  if  you  believe  me 
to  be  a  deceiver  of  my  fellow-Catholics,  you  cannot  have  entertained 
.any  respect  for  my  character,  miles  your  moral  perceptions  are  too 
dim  to  discover  any  difference  between  vice  and  virtue.  If  you  pro¬ 
fess  a  respect,  which  you  domot  feel,  it  is  equally  manifest  th.at  your 
standing  of  mor.als  is  artificial,  subject  to  the  control  of  your  will 
and  your  pen.  In  either  case  you  are  inconsistent,  and  it  is,  perhaps, 
well  for  you  that  you  did  not  write  your  letters  under  the  solemnity 
of  an  o.ath,  in  which  c.ase  something  like  perjury  would  come  out 
on  the  cross-examination. 

By  what  right,  sir,  did  you  assume  that  I  am  not  sincere  in  the 
Catholic  faith  ?*  And  if  you  did  assume  it,  by  what  rule  of  hy¬ 
pocrisy  and  falsehood  did  you  stultify  yourself  by  professing  re- 
sjiect  for  my  clnaracter  ?  You  could  find  the  premises  of  such  a 
false  and  uncharitable  conclusion  only  in  your  heart,  or  mine.  To 
mine  you  have  had  no  access,  .and  you  should  have  been  cautious  in 
proclaiming  such  discoveries  as  could  have  been  derived,  only  by 
an.alogy,  from  yo,ur  own. 

I  believe  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  as  firmly  as  I  do  my  own  existence.  Nay,  more.  I  believe 
that,  as  containing  the  fullness  of  Divine  revelation,  it  is  the  only 
true  Church  on  the  e.arth — although  many  true  C.atholic  doctrines 
are  found  floating  about  as  opinions  in  the  religious  atmosphere  of 
Protestantism.  This  is  my  profession  of  faith,  of  the  sincerity  of 
which  1  he  Almighty  is  my  witness  ;  and  I  am  not  aware  th.at  I  have 
ever  given  you,  or  any  other  human  being,  reason  to  infer,  by  word 
or  action,  that  I  believed  otherwise. 

I  must  decline,  therefore,  the  tender  of  yoxir  respect  for  my  ch.ar- 
acter.  But  I  would  not  have  you  on  that  account  to  regard  me  as 
r.n  enemy.  On  the  contrary,  I  would  be  your  friend ;  and  the  high- 
c-.st  proof  of  this  Avhich  you  h.ave  left  in  my  power  to  offer,  is  the 


689 


“  KIRWAI^-  ”  UNMASKED. 

sineere  tleclaration  that,  as  a  fellow-being,  you  have  my  pity — and 
l>est  wishes  withal.  1  shall  begin  to  analyze  your  reasons  next 
week.  >J<  John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


LETTER  IT. 

To  “Kirwan,'^'’  alias  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray,  D.  D.,  of  Elizabethtown, 

Nexv  Jersey : 

Dear  Sir  —  The  merit  of  your  letters,  if  they  have  any  in  the 
eyes  of  sincere  Protestants,  is  in  the  supposed  fact  that  you  were 
brought  up  and  instructed  in  the  Catholic  religion ;  and  that  your 
testimony  is  more  trustworthy,  on  this  account,  than  if  you  had 
been  born  and  brought  up  a  Protestant. 

This  is,  in  fact,  the  ground  which  you  have  taken.  You  speak  of 
yourself,  of  your  knowledge  and  experience  of  the  Catholic  religion, 
of  yoxtr  reasons  for  renouncing  it,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
your  letters.  Yon  are  the  witness  in  the  cause ;  you  are  the  hero  of 
the  romance ;  and  it  will  be  impossible  for  me  to  do  justice  to  the 
review,  without  paying  attention  to  the  prominent  personality  which 
you  have  established  for  yourself,  in  assigning  the  reasons  of  your 
conversion. 

The  first  position  which  I  intend  to  establish  then,  C, 
never  produced  a  peasant  more  ignorant  of  the  Catholic  religion, 
than  you  were  when  you  renounced  the  creed  of  your  fathers  and 
became  an  infidel.  For  the  ])roof  of  this  position  you  shall  be  my 
witness.  Turn  to  your  first  letter  and  read  your  own  words  : 

“  I  first  became  an  infidel.  Knowing  nothing  of  religion  but 
t.h.at  which  was  taught  me  by  my  parents  and  priests,  and  thinking 
tliat  that  was  the  sum  of  it,  when  that  Avas  rejected  infidelity 
became  my  only  alternative.” — page  11. 

“  On  reaching  the  years  of  maturity  my  mind  was  a  perfect  blank 
as  to  all  religious  instruction.” — page  30. 

“  With  my  Missal  I  Avas  someAvhat  familiar ;  I  said  the  Catechism 
when  I  was  confirmed,  at  the  age  of  nine  or  ten,  and  that  Avas  the 
amount  of  my  religious  education.  At  tlie  age  of  eighteen  years 
the  catechism  was  forgotten,  and  the  Missal  Avas  neglected,  and  as 
my  conscience  Avas  uneducated,  and  my  mind  unfurnished  Avith  re¬ 
ligious  principles,  the  only  test  of  truth  left  me  Avas  my  common 
sense.” — page  31. 

This  Avas  precisely  the  age  at  Avhich  you  left  the  Cliurch  and  be¬ 
came  an  infidel.  Your  “  mind  was  a  perfect  blank  as  to  all  religious 
instruction.”  In  other  Avords,  you  Avere  perfectly  ignorant  of  the 
religion  Avhich  you  Avere  about  to  reject,  and,  if  Ave  can  trust  to  your 
own  language,  this  ignorance  Avas  the  only  reason  going  before  and 
determining  your  conversion  to  infidelity. 

The  reader  may  suppose  that  in  proclaiming  your  pi-ofoiind  ig¬ 
norance  of  religion,  your  meaning  is,  that  you  understood  the 

V 


640 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Catholic  faith,  in  which  you  were  brought  up,  but  that  you  were 
as  yet  fguorant  of  the  pure  evangelical  doctrines  which  you  have 
since  embraced.  But  this  would  be  a  mistake.  Your  meaning  is, 
that  you  were  entirely  ignorant  of  the  Catholic  religion,  as  well 
as  of  all  others.  For  this  also  we  have  your  own  testimony,  in  the 
following  words : 

“  Some  book  or  tract,  now  forgotten,  gave  rise  to  some  inquiries 
as  to  the  Mass.  I  asked.  What  does  it  mean  ?  I  could  not  tell, 
though  for  years  a  regular  attendant  upon  it.  Why  does  the  priest 
dress  so  ?  What  book  does  he  read  from,  when  carried  now  to  his 
right,  and  now  to  his  left  ?  Wliat  means  those  candles  burning 
at  noonday  ?  Why  do  I  say  prayers  in  Latin,  which  I  understand 
not  ?  Should  I  not  know  what  I  am  saying  when  addressing  my 
Maker  ?  Why  bow  down  and  strike  my  breast  when  the  little  bell 
rings?  What  does  it  all  mean  ?  The  darkness  of  Egypt  rested  upon 
the  questions. — page  83. 

Never  did  man  forsake  one  religion  and  join  another,  who  had 
contrived  to  be  so  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  forsaken  creed  as  you, 
Nicholas  Murray,  prove  yourself  to  have  been,  in  regard  to  Catho¬ 
licity,  when  you  renounced  it  and  became  an  infidel.  Whatever 
you  know  of  it  now,  true  or  false,  you  have  learned  as  other 
Protestants  do,  outside  of  the  Church  and  from  her  enemies. 

It  is  imputed  to  our  countrymen  that  they  act  first,  and  reflect  af¬ 
terward.  I  am  sorry,  sir,  that  your  conduct,  when  you  renounced 
the  creed  of  your  humble,  but,  I  have  no  doubt,  virtuous  and  re¬ 
spectable  parents,  goes  so  far  to  justify  the  imputation.  It  is  cer¬ 
tain,  on  your  own  testimony,  that  when  you  ceased  to  be  a  Catho¬ 
lic  and  became  an  infidel,  the  Catholic  religion  might  be  true,  or 
might  be  fiilse,  for  all  you  knew  about  it.  It  is  equally  certain  that 
when^  in  1847,  you  published  a  series  of  smart,  if  not  learned,  rea¬ 
sons,  for  your  conduct  thirty  years  ago,  you  have  been  again  acting 
more  Hihernico — and  sorry  I  am  that  during  so  long  a  period,  with 
the  advantages  of  American  and  Presbyterian  training,  you  have 
not  yet  outgrown  the  national  W'eakness.  But,  sir,  no  genuine 
Irishman  would  attempt  to  justify  his  act  by  reasons  which,  in  the 
order  of  time,  occur  to  his  mind  thirty  years  after  the  act  had 
been  performed  —  as  you  may  have  done.  A  genuine  Irishman 
would  consent  to  be  laughed  at,  and  would  join  in  the  laugh  wdth 
right  good  humor,  rather  than  attempt  the  trick  of  reversing  the 
wheel  of  time,  and  assigning  the  reasons  of  1847  as  the  motives  of 
his  conduct. 

The  chronology  of  the  events  which  make  up  a  case  is  oftentimes 
very  important.  Previous  to  your  conversion  you  knew  nothing 
of  the  Catholic — nothing  of  the  Protestant — religion.  The  reasons 
assigned  in  your  recent  letters,  may  or  may  not  be  good  rea¬ 
sons,  but  whether  good  or  bad,  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  yo\ir 
change  of  religion.  You  blundered  out  of  the  Church  and  into  in¬ 
fidelity,  wdthout  knowing  wdiy  or  w'herefore — and  your  reasons  are 
all  out  of  date.  They  might  be  styled  with  great  propriety,  “  An 


641 


“  KIRWAN  ”  UXMASKED. 


Irishman’s  motives  for  becoming  a  Protestant,  arranged  according 
to  the  order  imputed  to  his  countrymen,  that  of  acting  first,  and  re- 
fiecting  afterward.” 

You  may  blame  your  priests  or  your  parents,  as  you  please,  for  the 
]ieculiar  absence  of  religious  knowledge  which  preceded  your  con¬ 
version.  But  the  fact  of  your  profound  ignorance  of  all  religion, 
at  the  period  of  your  change,  is  the  material  painty  and  you  have 
been  candid  enough  to  establish  that  point  beyond  all  dispute. 

You  seem  to  be  troubled  with  a  peculiar  weakness  of  memory 
— and  this  is  a  great  misfortune  in  a  Christian  man  who  writes  for 
the  edification  of  the  public.  After  what  we  have  just  seen  of  your 
mental  condition  at  the  period  of  your  apostacy  from  the  Church, 
into  what  an  awkward  exhibition  of  yourself  does  this  short  mem¬ 
ory  betray  you  at  the  end  of  your  first  letter,  where  you  profess  “  to 
state  in  a  series  of  letters  to  my  Right  Reverence  the  reasons  lohich 
INDUCED  7JOII  to  leave  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  which  pre¬ 
vent  you  from  returning  to  it.” — page  11.  Now,  dear  “  IviiAvan,” 
we  are  told  in  logic,  that,  of  two  propositions  which  nmtually  con¬ 
tradict  each  other,  one  must  \)Q  false.  If  your  mind  was  “a  perfect 
blank  as  to  all  religious  instruction,”  as  you  assure  us  it  was,  (page 
30,)  how  could  you  have  had  “  reasons  that  induced  you  to  leave  the 
Church?” — page  11.  Have  you  forgotten  in  the  one  page,  Avhat 
you  had  affirmed  in  the  other?  Now,  however,  tha.t  I  have  called 
your  recollection  to  the  mistake,  pray  be  serious,  and  tell  the  pub¬ 
lic  which  of  these  contradictory  statements  you  would  have  it  to  be¬ 
lieve.  Why,  sir,  your  own  great  stand-by,  “  common  sense,”  revolts 
at  the  insult  of  religious  reasons”  offered  from  a  mind  which,  as 
to  religious  instruction,  is  a  “  perfect  blank !” 

Some  persons  may  think  that  you  are  quizzing  the  public.  I 
think  not.  Your  memory  appears  to  have  been  but  poor  from  your 
childhood.  And  here  allow  me  to  pluck  up  a  nettle  which  you 
would  have  planted  on  the  graves  of  “  your  parents  and  priests.” 
ThaidvS  to  their  charitable  efforts  for  your  instruction  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine,  you  “  knew  your  Catechism  by  heart,  at  the  age  of 
nine  or  ten  years,  wlien  you  were  confirmed.” — page  31.  Now  I 
A\'ould  call  this  a  good,  almost  an  extraordinary  memory  in  a  child 
of  ten  years.  It  had  taken  in  and  retained  the  waters  of  Christian 
knowledge  which  overspread  the  pages  of  the  entire  C*atechism 
which  you  knew  by  heart.  This  Avas  no  trifle.  But  the  first  sub¬ 
sequent  evidence  of  its  failure  is  the  fact  that  you  have  forgotten 
to  tell  us  of  (he  sad  catastrophe  by  Avhich  it  became  a  cracked  and 
leaky  cistern  immediately  after  confirmation  ;  so  that  the  “  Catechism 
itself  was  forgotten”  when  you  arrived  at  the  jumping-off  period  of 
eighteen  years. — Ibid.  Pray,  might  I  ask,  whether  it  was  this, 
viHir  precocious  talent  of  forgetfulness  Avhich  caused  you  to  be 
“even  talked  of  as  a  candidate  for  Maynooth?” — page  31. 

But,  after  all,  dear  sir,  this  memory  of  yours  puzzles  me  amazingly. 
I  turn  to  page  08,  wl:ere,  liaving  given  me  up,  you  address  the 
Irish  Catholic  Laity  in  such  tones  of  winning  tenderness,  that 
41 


642 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Blarney  Castle  never  tipped  the  hnman  tongue  with  sweeter.  “Your 
present  feelings,  as  to  your  Church,  I  have  had,  and  in  all  their 
force.  I  can  entirely  appreciate  them.  I  have  cordially  hated 
Protestantism  and  Protestants ;  and  I  have  seen  the  time  when  I 
regarded  the  man  as  a  personal  enemy  who  wmuld  utter  a  word 
against  my  religion.  But  those  w'ere  the  days  of  my  youth  and  my 
ignorance.  When  I  became  a  man  I  put  away  childish  things.” — 
page  98.  Why,  this  is  queer.  You  had  forgotten  at  eighteen 
what  the  Church  had  taught  you ;  and  you  remember  at  nine-and- 
forty  your  hatred  of  Protestants,  which  she  never  tavght  you  at  all! 
You  remember  that  when  you  became  a  man,  you  “  put  awoay  child¬ 
ish  things”  and  “became  also  an  infidel.”  Yet  you  forget  that  you 
had  told  us  before,  that  when  you  became  a  man,  there  were  no 
“  childish  things”  left  to  be  put  aw'ay — that  they  had  already  sloyed. 
from  your  memory — that  at  the  early  age  of  eighteen  you  had 
“forgotten  them,”  and  that,  as  to  religious  instruction,  your  mind 
was  a  “  perfect  blank  !” 

It  is  not  my  business  to  reconcile  these  flat,  palpable  contradic¬ 
tions.  I  have  established  from  your  ow'ii  repeated  avowal,  your 
utter  and  profound  ignorance  of  the  Catholic  religion,  when  you 
left  the  Church  and  became  an  infidel.  You  never  came  back  to 
finish,  or  rather  to  begin  your  Catholic  education.  Like  one  of  the 
winged  messengers  let  loose  from  the  hand  of  the  Patriarch,  you 
found  more  congenial  sustenance  abroad,  and  you  returned  to  the 
Ark  no  more.  In  all  this  you  may  have  been  sincere,  and  if  you 
were,  in  nothing  of  this  do  I  blame  you.  But  I  do  blame  you  for 
assuming  a  character  which  does  not  belong  to  you. 

When  a  man  changes  his  religion  he  ought  to  be  serious  and  sin¬ 
cere.  When  he  does  it  with  that  direct  reference  to  his  account  at 
the  bar  of  God’s  eternal  judgment,  which  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the 
sincerity  of  his  motive,  then,  as  I  have  said  once  before,  I  regard  it 
as  the  grandest  and  most  truly  heroic  act  of  Avhich  a  rational  being 
is  capable  on  this  earth.  To  assign  the  motives  for  such  an  act  is 
equally  fair  and  honorable.  But,  sir,  I  can  conceive  nothing  more 
disgusting  to  an  upright  mind,  than  to  discover  wdiat  is  vulgarly, 
but  very  expressively  called  “  humbug”  mixed  up  in  tlie  assignment 
of  such  motives.  This  foul  admixture  is  wdiat  I  charge  upon  your 
recent  letter,  and  what  I  blame. 

The  American  public  are  generous,  and  credulous  also,  toward 
those  who  profess  to  wuite  for  their  amusement  or  instruction.  Be¬ 
ing  chiefly  Protestants,  little  acquainted  with  the  religion  wdiich 
you  have  forsaken  and  denounced,  they  wmuld  be — they  have  been 
■ — particularly  generous  and  credulous  toward  you.  As  an  Irish¬ 
man,  it  was  unworthy  of  you  to  take  unfair  advantage  of  these 
noble  sentiments. 

It  is  true,  that  if  they  read  your  pages  wfith  a  cold,  impartial 
criticism,  they  would  see  enough  to  put  them  on  their  guard.  But 
jour  profound  ignorance  of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  w^hen  you  be¬ 
come  an  infidel,  wdiich  you  assert  and  repeat,  usque  ad  nauseam,  they 


643 


“  KIEWAN  ”  UNMASKED. 

will  construe,  like  yourself,  as  the  reproach  of  your  parents  and 
priests.  On  the  other  hand,  your  introduction  of  yourself  as  one 
brought  up  in  the  “camp  of  the  enemy,”  was  obviously  intended 
to  deceive  them.  Here  is  your  bow  to  the  public.  “  I  was  baptized 
by  a  priest — I  was  confirmed  by  a  bishop — I  often  went  to  confes¬ 
sion — I  have  worn  my  amulets — and  I  have  said  my  Pater  Nosters 
and  my  Hail  Marys,  more  times  than  I  can  now  enumerate.” — 
page  10. 

Now,  this  announcement  of  your  competency  to  treat  the  subject, 
is  sufficiently  brief,  and  sufficiently  stupid.  Barring  the  “  am.ulets,” 
Voltaire  could  have  said  the  same  of  himself.  But  ninety-nine  out 
of  every  hundred  of  your  American  I'eaders  would  say  on  perusing 
this — “  There,  there,  at  length,  is  a  man  who  knows  Popery  from 
loithin,  from  personal  knowledge — a  man  who,  with  the  modesty  of 
true  genius,  merely  insinuates  the  extent  of  his  information,  and 
thus  avoids  egotism  and  the  offensive  display  of  his  gifts.” 

Such  feelings  on  the  part  of  the  American  public  ought  not  to  be 
trifled  with  by  you.  Of  your  own  knowledge  of  Popery,  ^s  you  call 
it,  you  know  nothing — and  you  have  avowed  it.  Then  you  are  no 
more  competent  to  speak  or  Avrite  of  it,  than  Dr.  BroAvnlee  was. 
What  you  know  of  it,  true  or  false,  you  like  him,  have  learned  from 
its  enemies.  But  there  is  a  difference.  Dr.  Brownlee  never  had  the 
chance  lo  learn  and  then  forget  the  Catholic  catechism  before  the 
age  of  eighteen. 

Let  the  public,  then,  understand  that  yo'u  are  to  take  rank  among 
those  anti-Catholic  writers,  who  draw  from  such  fountains  as  that 
mammoth  reservoir  —  “  McGavin’s  Protestant.”  Anti-Catholic 
retailers  like  you  may  take  from  that  source  theological  lore  to  any 
extent,  and  deal  it  out  to  those  who  have  a  relish  for  it.  It  would 
seem  that  such  persons  are  still  numerous  enotxgh  to  make  the 
Nineteenth  Century  ashamed  of  itself,  if  it  were  the  age  of  light 
which  it  professes  to  be. 

In  this  letter  I  have  proved,  on  your  own  testimony,  that  you 
were  utterly  ignorant  of  Catholic  doctrine  when  you  left  the  Church 
and  became  an  infidel.  In.  my  next  I  shall  have  the  more  pleasing 
task  of  tracing  your  progress  out  of  infidelity  and  into  Presbyteri¬ 
anism,  which  was  a  decided  improvement  in  your  spiritual,  and 
possibly,  in  your  temporal  condition.  Meanwhile,  I  feel  the  same 
pity  and  benevolence  toward  you  as  before. 

John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


LETTER  III. 

To  “  Kirwanf  alias  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray.^  D.  7).,  of  Elizabethtown.^ 
New  Jersey : 

Dear  Sir — A^ou  tell  us  that  “ignorance  is  the  parent  of 
papal  devotion.” — Second  series,  page  80.  How  was  it,  then,  that 


644 


ARCHBISUOP  HUGHES. 


ignoi’ance  prodncetl  so  contrary  an  effect  upon  you  ?  You  appear 
to  have  been  rather  a  good  boy,  when  you  said  your  Catecliisra,  at 
nine  or  ten  years  of  age.  But  at  eighteen,  your  mind  was  a  “  perfect 
blank  as  to  all  religious  instructions.”  Could  ignorance  be  greater 
than  this  ?  How  is  it,  then,  that  instead  of  the  Catholic  saint,  which 
your  rule  of  “  papal  devotion”  should  have  led  us  to  expect,  we  find 
you  at  that  period  of  your  life,  as  you  have  taken  pains  to  tell  us, 

“  an  infidel  ?”  It  seems  that  from  ten  to  eighteen  years,  as  your 
“  ignorance”  grew  more,  your  “  devotion”  grew  less — proving  that, 
at  least  in  your  case,  “  ignorance  is  not  the  parent  of  papal  devotion,” 
but  rather  of  infidelity. 

I  insist  as  yoit  perceive,  on  determining  the  state  of  your  intellect 
at  the  period  of  your  fall  from  the  faith.  Your  subsequent  acquire¬ 
ment  of  knowledge  and  education,  I  have  no  wish  to  question  or 
deny.  But  the  public  will  be  naturally  interested  in  ascertaining  the 
condition  of  your  mind,  at  the  critical  period,  for  you,  when  you 
rejected  the  Catholic  Church,  and  embraced  infidelity.  A  life  so 
important io  the  philosophical  and  theological  world  as  yours  requires 
to  be  divided  into  distinct  and  successive  epochs,  and  to  have  each 
of  its  periods  considered  separately  from  the  others,  if  one  would 
do  justice  to  the  whole. 

First,  then,  we  must  leave  out  the  Presbyterian  education^  which  you 
have  acquired  since  you  became  an  infidel,  at  the  age  of  eighteen 
Secondly,  we  must  leave  out  the  education  of  the  Catholic  catechism^ 
which  you  had  foi’gotten.  Thirdly,  we  must  leave  out  any  knowled.ge 
tvhich  you  might  have  derived  from  Catholic  devotions^  for  you  tell  us 
that  you  said  your  prayers  “  in  Latin,  which  you  did  not  under¬ 
stand.” — page  33.  Fourthly,  we  must  leave  out  all  instruction  by 
hearing^  for  you  tell  us  “  you  never  heard  a  sermon  preached  in  a  Catho¬ 
lic  chapel  in  Ireland ;  nor  a  word  of  explanation  on  a  single  Christian 
topic,  or  doctrine,  or  dutyP — page  29.  Now,  according  to  your  owm 
statement,  this  w'as  the  condition  of  your  mind  when  you  left  the 
Catholic  Church  ;  and  I  doubt  whether  Christendom  could  furnish 
one  other  instance  of  such  mental  nudity — such  utter  destitution  of 
all  Christian  knowledge. 

And  now,  forsooth,  tour  “  Reasons”  for  leaving  the  Church ! 
What  reasons  ?  The  existence  of  reasons  in  such  a  mind,  on  such  a 
subject,  was  a  metaphysical  impossibility.  Reasons  necessarily 
imply  comparison  ;  comparison  necessarily  supposes  knowledge  of 
the  things  compared ;  but  in  your  case,  as  we  take  it  from  your  own 
pen,  there  was  no  knowledge  of  the  things  to  be  compared,  and 
therefore  there  could  be  no  comparison,  and  therefore  no  reasons 
— that  is,  no  reasons  for  a  mind  in  the  condition  of  yours,  as  you 
have  described  it. 

But  you  had,  you  say,  “  Common  sense.”  I  doubt  it.  “Common 
sense”  is  by  no  means  so  common  as  you  seem  to  imagine.  If  you 
take  the  term  to  signify  the  general  opinion  of  the  age  and  country 
you  lived  in  at  the  time,  it  is  evident  that  your  renouncing  Catho¬ 
licity,  and  becoming  an  infidel,  was  not,  and  could  not  be  called,  an 


“  KIRWAN  ”  UNMASKED.  645 

exercise  of  “common  sense.”  If,  on  the  other  hand,  you  mean  that 
intrinsic  faculty  of  the  human  mind,  by  which  a  man  decides 
mentally  according  to  the  evidences  of  the  case,  it  is  equally  clear 
in  your  case,  that  common  sense  had  no  evidence  to  act  upon  ;  and 
although  I  do  not  deny  its  existence  in  the  abstract,  yet  its  agency 
could  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  your  real  or  imaginary  conver¬ 
sion.  Tell  an  African  beneath  the  tropics  about  ice,  of  what  avail 
will  his  “  common  sense”  be  to  him  in  determining  the  truth  or 
error  of  your  statement  ? 

But  supposing  he  admits  the  existence  of  ice,  will  his  “commoi# 
sense”  enable  him  to  determine  any  of  its  properties?  Not  at  all. 
His  “  common  sense”  is  just  as  likely  to  decide  that  ice  will  burn,  as 
that  it  will  chill,  the  hand,  or  other  part  of  the  body  to  which  it 
might  be  applied.  Now  your  case  and  his  case  are  equal  illustra¬ 
tions  of  “  common  sense,”  in  the  absence  of  the  elements  from  which 
its  office  is  inseparable,  namely,  knowledge  of  the  things  to  which  it 
is  applied.  For  you,  religious  knowledge,  at  the  period  of  your 
change,  consisted  of  two  parts  ; — the  one  Presbyterian  or  Protestant, 
which  you,  had  yet  to  learn;  the  other  Catholic,  which  you  had  for¬ 
gotten,,  or  had  never  known.  In  the  absence  of  both  these  divisions 
of  religious  knowledge  were  you  not  much  in  the  condition  of  the 
African,  decided  on  the  properties  of. ice,  by  the  standard  of  “com¬ 
mon  sense  ?” 

I  think,  sir,  that  you  will  admit  this  reasoning  to  be  conclusive. 
The  premises  are  your  own,  the  conclusions  are  logically  and  fairly 
deduced.  And  if  so,  then  it  follows  that,  at  the  time  of  your 
pretended  conversion,  you  had  not  and  could  not  have  had  any 
reasons  for  your  change  of  religion.  And  if  so,  it  follows  again, 
that  in  assigning  those  mentioned  in  your  letters  as  inducing  you 
to  make  the  change,  you  have  been  imposing  on  the  good  faith  of 
your  fellow-beings,  and  exhibiting  a  want  of  that  regard  for  truth 
w'hich  would  be  so  becoming  in  a  minister  of  religion,  and  especially 
one  who  professes  so  high  a  respect  for  “  common  sense,”  and  so 
intimate  an  acquaintance  with  his  “  unfettered  Bible.”  Does  the 
Bible  warrant  such  statements  as  the  following  ? 

You  tell  us  how  the  priest  used  to  question  you  in  confession,  and 
how  you  used  to  answer  him. — page  20.  You  complain  that  he  did 
“not  speak  to  you  in  English,”  but  “in  Latin.” — same  page.  You 
tell  us  a  few  minutes  after  that  you  “  did  not  understand  Latin.” — 
page  33.  Now  the  difficulty  is,  how  could  you  answer 
questions  in  a  language  which  yon  did  not  understand  ?  It  seems 
that  when  you  went  to  confession  something  like  the  wonders  of 
Pentecost  took  place  between  you  and  the  pl'iest.  He  spoke  to  you 
in  an  unknown  tongue,  and  you  answered  him  with  the  utmost  ease, 
although  you  did  not  understand  the  language  in  which  he  addressed  you  ! 
There  is  nothing  more  miraculous  on  i-ecord  than  this,  if  what  you 
say  were  true.  But  it  is  not  true.  The  priest  spoke  to  you  in 
English  ;  you  answered  him  in  English.  Why  then  do  you  “  bear  * 
false  witness  against”  the  priest,  charging  him  with  having  spoken 


646 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


to  you  “  in  Latin,”  whicli  “  you  did  not  understand  ?”•  Does  Pres¬ 
byterianism  require  such  services  as  this  at  your  hands  ?  In  former 
times  you  found  “  that  you  could  play  your  pranks  better  after  con¬ 
fession  than  before  — but  after  thirty  years  of  reading  the  Bible, 
might  not  one  expect  that  you  would  give  up  “  playing  your  pranks” 
altogether  ? 

We  have  already  seen  that  when  you  left  the  Catholic  Church 
your  mind  was,  in  yonr  own  Avords,  a  “  perfect  blank  as  to  all 
religious  instruction.”  The  reader  will  be  curious  to  learn  when 
ftnd  how  you  procured  the  necessary  outfit  to  cover  the  mental 
nudity  in  which  you  forsook  us  and  to  appear  before  the  public  (as 
you  have  appeared  in  your  recent  letters)  decked  ofi’  in  the  second¬ 
hand  raiment  of  Catholic  theology.  This  is  a  natural  and  not 
unreasonable  curiosity ;  and  considering  how  much  your  letters  are 
in  the  style  of  autobiography,  I  am  surprised  you  did  not  account 
for  your  Protestant  knowledge  as  Avell  as  your  Catholic  ignorance.  Let 
me  supply  the  omission  as  briefly  as  possible. 

It  seems  that  like  other  spars  of  Irish  shipwreck  you  drifted  to 
these  shores  at  an  early  age.  You  had  the  good  or  the  bad  fortune 
to  be  picked  up  by  Presbyterian  patrons.  You  were  a  stranger  and 
they  took  you  in.  Whether  they  were  gifted  or  not  Avith  that 
“second  sight”  peculiar  to  the  children  of  the  clouds.,  m  Yoj’th 
Britain,  it  does  great  credit  to  their  penetration  to  have  discoA'ered 
in  you  (under  all  the  disadvantages  of  that  ignorance  and  infidelity  to  ^ 
Avhich  you  have  so  often  directed,  our  attention)  wliat|;oe/?-y  has  called 

“A  gem  of  purest  ray  serene.” 

Under  the  influence  of  this  benevolent  anticipation,  they  sent  you 
to  College.  As  your  mind  Avas  a  “  perfect  blank,”  of  course  you  had 
nothing  to  unlearn.  There  was  no  Popish  rubbish  left  from  the 
ruins  of  the  former  edifice.  The  foundations  Avere  unobstructed  and 
clear,  and  the  new  architects  had  only  to  proceed  with  their  Avork 
and  build  you  up  according  to  the  approved  rules  of  Presbyterian 
“  constructiveness.”  They  did  so  build  you  up  accordingly,  and 
noAV,  you  are  what  you  are. 

In  assigning  reasons  Avhy  you  left  the  Catholic  Church  and  now 
Cannot  return,  I  am  surprised  you  have  omitted  all  this.  To  most 
Catholics,  and  indeed  to  many  Protestants,  this  reason  alone  would 
be  quite  sufficient  to  account  for  it  all. 

And  yet,  there  is  nothing  in  the  poverty  which  caused  you  to  fall 
into  such  hands,  of  which  it  Avould  not  be  great  Aveakness,  on  your 
part,  to  be  in  the  least  ashamed.  If  circumstances  had  not  placed 
you  in  a  false  position.,  L  think  you  Avould  feel  proud  of  the  poA'erty 
which  you  inherited  from  your  Irish  parents  ;  for  it  is  the  most 
incontestable  evidence  that  your  Catholic  ancestors  were  “  true 
men,”  in  their  generation.  If  they  had  been  unprincipled  hypocrites, 
capable  of  betraying  their  conscience  and  their  God,  at  almost  any 
period  Avithin  the  last  three  hundred  years,  they  might  have  re¬ 
nounced  their  religion,  and  pocketed  the  bribe  which  the  Gospel,  as 


647 


“kirwan”  unmasked. 

“  by  law  established,”  had  set  apart  as  the  recompense  of  apostacy 
from  the  Catholic  faith.  But  they  did  not.  They  supposed  that 
their  posterity  would  be  worthy  of  them; — they  supposed  that  one 
Esau,  selling  his  birthright  for  a  mess  of  pottage,  Avas  enough  in  the 
history  of  our  race ;  they  submitted  to  be  plundered  of  their  earthly 
goods  ;  they  submitted  to  be  deprived  of  education  ;  the  cruel  edict 
of  ignorance  thus  enacted  against  them,  was  Protestant  edict ;  they 
submitted  to  its  penalties  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  asserted  the 
right  and  superiority  of  glorious  principle  over  base  and  mercenary 
interest;  they  proA’ed  that  the  material  tyrant  cannot  vanquish  the 
immaterial  and  immortal  mind ;  they  bore  and  detied  his  torture, 
while  they  writhed  under  it;  they  spurned  and  repelled  his  offered 
bribe  of  apostacy,  whilst  to  human  view  it  was  the  only  alternative 
between  them  and  ignorance,  poverty,  starvation  and  death.  But 
they  Avelcomed  all  sooner  than  betray  principle  or  violate  conscience. 

(3,  sir,  they  were  glorious  men  and  true.,  our  Irish  Catholic  ancestors  ; 
I  am  prouder  of  them,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  than  if  at  the  sacri¬ 
fice  of  truth,  or  honor,  or  principle,  they  had  bequeathed  to  me  the 
titles  and  wealth  of  the  Beresfords,  Nor  can  I  believe  that  you,  in 
your  heart,  entertain  any  other  sentiments  in  their  regard.  You, 
like  myself,  have  borne  the  penalty  of  their  constancy  to  truth  and 
conscience ;  and  in  ymur  pulpit  in  Elizabethtown,  in  your  most 
fervid  and  eloquent  appeals  to  your  Presbyterian  audience,  if  a 
recollection  of  your  heroic  and  invincible  Catholic  forefathers  should 
perchance,  flash  across  your  memory,  you  Avill  feel  proud  of  them., 
and  ashamed  of  yourself .  “  How  came  you  there  ?”  If  I  held  you 

capable  of  other  sentiments  I  should  be  uttering  a  libel  on  the  Irish 
heart  in  particular,  and  on  human  nature  in  general. 

Sir,  I  think  you  made  a  great  mistake  in  publishing  your  letters 
anonymously  ;  especially  when  you  took  the  unmanly  and  unwar¬ 
rantable  liberty  of  blazoning  forth  my  name  in  connection  with  them, 
whilst  you  concealed  your  own.  But  having  done  this,  you  have 
made  another  great  mistake  in  allowing  the  soft,  Avarm  breath  of 
thoughtless  flattery  to  melt  so  prematurely  the  Avaxen  ties  of  your 
mask.  Your  letters  have  been  compared  to  those  of  Junius,  but 
you  haA^e  not  imitated  your  model  successfully,  in  the  important 
aflair  of  keeping  your  own  secret.  You  have  made  another  mistake 
still,  in  Aveaving  in  your  own  biography,  your  own  pjersonality,  as  the 
woof  of  your  polemical  Aveb.  Another  mistake  still  you  have  made 
in  bringing  in  your  parents  to  embellish  your  pages.  It  Avould  be 
Avrong  for  you,  I  suppose,  in  your  new  light,  to  pray  for  the  soul, 
of  your  deceased  father  ;  but  you  might  have  Avritten  a  very  clever 
book  .against  Popery  Avithout  invading  his  grave  or  disturbing  his 
ashes  at  all.  The  same  may  be  said  in  general  of  those  little 
stories  Avith  Avhich  your  first  letters  are  adorned,  about  “  yourself,” 
and  your  “  house,”  and  your  “  hall,”  and  the  “  dark  room  up  stairs/’ 
and  the  “  drunken  priest”  to  Avhom  you  ministered  brandy,*etc.  etc. 
These  “awful  disclosures”  Avould  do  very  Avell  in  the  pages  of 
Maria  Monk,  Miss  Partridge,  or  some  of  the  other  vestals  of  their 


648 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


class,  of  whom  the  Catholic  Church  is  not  worthy.  Even  in  the 
writings  of  Monk  Leahy,  I  do  not  say  they  would  be  out  of  place. 

But  in  the  production  of  a  scholar  and  a  gentleman  like  you,  I 
am  sorry  to  see  them.  They  have  a  kind  of  mean,  “  tell-tale”  appear¬ 
ance — they  are  a  betrayal  of  former  friends  and  associates,  which, 
to  my  mind,  at  least,  indicates  the  absence  of  manly,  generous  feel¬ 
ing,  as  well  as  of  elevated  taste.  But  as  you  have  thought  other¬ 
wise,  I  must  review  them  somewhat  at  length  in  my  next  letter. 
Meantime  I  remain  with  pity  and  good  wishes  as  usual, 

^  John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  New  York, 


LETTER  IV. 

To  “  Kirwan^’’  alias  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray,  D.  D.,  of  Elizabeth- 

town.  New  Jersey  : 

t 

Dear  Sir — I  think  it  has  been  clearly  proved  in  my  last  letter, 
and  from  evidences  the  more  indisputable,  as  they  are  furnished  by 
your  own  pen,  that  you  had  no  reason,  either  intellectual  or  moral, 
for  leaving  the  Catholic  Church.  The  only  reason,  deduced  by  in¬ 
ference  from  what  you  have  written  ‘  of  yourself,  will  be  found  in 
a  thick,  dark  cloud  of  ignorance  and  infidelity,  such  as,  I  trust  in 
God,  never  enveloped  the  mind  of  any  other  Irish  Catholic  peasant 
at  the  age  of  eighteen,  either  since  or  before. 

Yet,  sir,  I  do  not  believe  that  your  ignorance  of  the  Catholic 
religion,  wlien  you  left  it,  was  so  unmitigated  as  you  pretend.  It  will 
be  very  difficult  for  you,  however,  either  to  retract  or  explain,  in 
your  real  character,  what  you  have  ])ublished  of  yourself  under  the 
duplicity  of  your  mask. 

I  know  not  what  intoxicating  influence  flattery  and  self-com¬ 
placency  may  have  produced  on  a  mind  and  memory  like  yours. 
But  I  do  know  that  ivhoever  writes  under  a  mask,  and  in  a  char¬ 
acter  even  partially  feigned,  and  especially  if  he  writes  on  any  grave 
subject,  in  which  mankind  take  a  deep  interest,  does  so  at  the  im¬ 
minent  peril  of  his  own  rejnitatiou.  lie  is  nearly  certain  to  be 
found  out.  And  when  this  happens,  his  attempts  to  reconcile  the 
discrepancies  between  his  assumed  and  his  real  character  are  sure  to 
produce,  in  the  public  mind,  a  feeling  of  ridicule  not  uumingled 
with  a  feeling  of  contempt. 

In  the  introductory  note  prefixed  to  your  letters  I  learn  that  they 
were  furnished  to  Samuel  I.  Prime,  “under  the  injunction  of  secrecy 
as  to  the  author’s  name.”  If  you  lived  in  Spain  or  Sicily,  there 
might  be  some  reason  for  this  unnecessary  precaution.  But  if  your 
purpose  Avas  to  tell  “  the  truth,”  even  “  the  Avhole  truth,”  and 
“nothing  but  the  truth,”  in  your  testimony  for  Presbyterianism  or 
against  Catholicity,  Avhat  motive  could  you  have  had  in  this  free 
country  for  this  studious  concealment  of  your  name?  Here  the 


649 


“  KIRWAN  ”  TJjrJI ASKED. 

press  is  free,  and  writing  agahut  Popery  is  even  at  a  premium. 
Why  then,  as  an  honest  man,  conceal  your  name  ?  This  looks  badly 
Mr.  Prime,  indeed,  loaned  you  his  endorsement,  whatever  that  nia^ 
be  wortli.  He  introduces,  you  to  the  public,  vouching  for  your 
veracity  in  these  words  :  “  .  .  .  .  It  is  ]iroper  to  say  that  the 
writer’s  character  is  an  abundant  guarantee  for  the  fidelity  of  all 
matters  of  fact  here  stated,  and  that  he  is  prepared  to  maintain 
them,  if  they  should  be  called  in  question.”  Now,  sir,  there  are 
some  things  you  state  as  matters  of  fact,  which  I  beg  leave  most 
emphatically  to  call  in  question.  I  hope  you  may  be  able  to  main¬ 
tain  them,  or  if  not,  I  hope  Mr.  Prime  wdll  be  willing  to  forfeit  his 
recognizances, 

I.  You  state,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  nearly  at  the  age  of  man¬ 
hood,  “  on  as  full  an  examination  of  the  subject  as  you  could  give  it, 
you  lunne  to  the  conclusion  that  you  could  not  remain  a  Roman  Cutholicf 
— page  12.  Now,  sir,  I  refer  to  your  own  testimony,  quoted  in  my 
last  letter,  as  a  proof  that  your  mind  “  was  a  perfect  blank  as  to  all 
religious  instruction^'’  and  I  insist  that  therefore  you  did  not  give 
the  Catholic  religion  as  full  an  examination  as  you  could,  for  you 
could,  at  least,  have  revived  in  yourself  the  knowledge  of  “the 
Catecljism”  which  “you  had  forgotten.” 

II,  You  state,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  “  in  one  of  the  large  in¬ 
terior  towns  of  Ireland,  ....  you  resided  in  a  house,  and  over  the 
store  in  which  you  were  then  a  clerk.'” — page  13.  You  then  proceed 
to  tell  ns  about  a  drunken  priest.  Father  13.,  whom  you  helped  out 
of  the  gutter,  and  wind  up  the  whole  narrative  with  the  remark, 
“  and  a  young  man  as  I  was.”  This  phrase,  in  ordinary  language, 
would  refer  to  a  period  as  far  back  as  memory  goes — a  period  in 
Avhich  reason  was  but  in  the  dawn  of  its  development — say  eight, 
nine,  or  ten  years  of  age  ;  but  at  that  period,  if  we  can  believe  you, 
you  were  already  a  “  clerk  in  a  store  !”  Pray,  dear  Kirwan,”  what 
kind  of  a  clerk  were  you  ?  “  Young  as  you  were,”  by  your  own  ac¬ 
count,  you  were  able  “to  shut  the  store  windows  at  night;”  you  were 
able  “  to  help  a  man  out  of  the  gutter you  were  able  to  “  clean  off  his 
Peverence  ;”  you  were  able  to  “  give  him  his  brandy  next  morning,” 
and  yet  you  vrere  just  in  the  peilod  of  dawning  reason  and  earliest 
memory,  in  which  you  tell  us  that  “  young  as  you  w'ere,”  ail  this 
made  an  imj)ression  on  you.  The  circumstantial  part  of  the  story 
is  still  more  wonderful  than  the  leading  facts.  For  instance,  you 
could  not  see  the  man  in  the  gutter,  and  you  were  “  attracted  to¬ 
ward  him  by  a  singular  noise.”  Pray  what  kind  of  a  noise  is  a 
singular  noise?  And  then,  the  night  was  so  dark  that  had  it  not 
beeti  for  the  singular  noise  he  might  have  perished.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was  light  enough  to  recognize  “  Father  13.,  the  miracle 
worker.”  And  instead  of  helping  the  poor  man,  as  a  decent  “  clerk 
in  the  store”  should  have  done,  you  ran  in,  blabbling  to  the  lady  of 
the  house  that  Father  13.,  was  drunk  in  the  street.  And  the  '•'•lady 
of  the  house”  gave  the  “  clerk  in  the  store”  “a  stunning  slap  on  the 
side  of  the  face,”  and  “  the.  clerk  in  the  store”  “  staggered  under 


650 


ATICHBISIIOP  HUGHES. 


the  blow,  and  then  turned  round  in  the  best  nature  in  the  world  to 
assist  in  cleaning  off  his  Reverence.”  Next  morning  you  “  gave 
him  bis  brandy,”  and  “  young  as  the  clerk  in  the  store  was^  all  this 
made  an  impression  upon  him.”  Sir,  if  the  dullest  lawyer  in  the  coun¬ 
try  had  you  under  cross-examination  on  this  subject,  he  could  not  fail 
to  convulse  the  gravity  of  the  bench  with  irrepressible  laughter. 
Observe,  I  do  not  raise  any  question  as  to  whether  the  priest 
Avas  drunk  or  not ;  I  let  that  pass.  I  have  myself  seen  among  the 
convicts  of  the  penitentiary,  individuals  pointed  out  as  having  once 
been  respectable  Presl>ytei-ian  ministers,  and  who  were  there  for 
crimes  even  more  heinous  than  drunkenness.  But  no  man  of  right 
feelings  Avould  pretend  to  justify  an  opposite  religion,  or  to  con¬ 
demn  theirs  on  account  of  their  crimes  and  misfortimes.  I  beg 
leave,  then,  to  call  in  question  the  facts  which  you  state  in  your  cir¬ 
cumstantial  evidence  in  this  case.  And  I  direct  your  attention  par¬ 
ticularly  to  the  contradiction  implied  by  the  fact  that  you  were  a 
child  at  the  same  time  tliat  you  were  “  a  clerk  in  the  store.” 

III.  You  state  as  a  fact  that,  on  your  father’s  demise,  your  mother 
paid  the  priest  money  enough  to  haA^e  his  soul  prayed  for  by  name, 
on  every  Sunday  for  two  or  three  years.  That,  when  the  money 
was  expended,  his  name  Avas  gRen  out  no  more.  That,  Avhen  she 
inquired  the  cause  of  this,  the  priest  told  her,  that  “  yfutr  father's 
soul  was  still  in  Purgatory,  hut  that  she  had  forgotten  to  send  in  the 
yearly  tax  at  the  time  it  was  due." — page  14.  You  add,  that  with 
this  fact  in  particular,  yoii  are  entirely  conversant. 

Noav,  sir,  I  question  this  “fact.”  I  deny  this  “fact.”  I  pro¬ 
nounce  it  to  be  n  fabrication,  and  not  a  fact.  And  if  the  courtesy  of 
language  authorized  it,  I  should  feel  bound  to  designate  it  by  a  still 
harsher  Avord.  No  priest  Avould  ever  dare  to  decide  Avhen,  or  whether 
any  soul  Avas  released  from  Purgatory.  No  Irish  mother,  or 
wife,  or  Avidow,  would  ever  speak  to  a  priest  in  the  manner 
in  whieh  you  .describe  your  mother  as  having  spoken  to  him. 
It  is  true,  she  had  not,  like  her  son,  the  benefit  of  a  Presbyterian 
education.  She  bore  the  penalty  of  her  ancestors,  and  her  creed. 
But  she  kneAV  the  principles  of  the  Catholic  faith  better  than  you 
do  ;  and  your  superior  general  information  does  not  authorize  you  to 
envelop  her  in  this  gross  imputation  of  ignorance  as  to  her  faith. 
lam  willing  to  go  to  any  reasonable  expense  to  prove  this  a  fabrication, 
if  either  you  or  Mr.  Prime  have  the  courage  to  meet  me,  in  a  formal 
investigation. 

IV.  You  state  that  “Father  M.,  held  frequently  his  confessions 
at  your  house.”  “  That  he  sat  in  a  dark  room  up  stairs  with  one  or 
more  candles  on  a  table  before  him."  That  “  those  going  to  confession 
followed  each  other  on  their  knees  from  the  front  door,  through  the  hall, 
up  the  stairs,  and  io  the  door  of  the  room." — page  19. 

Now,  sir,  your  house  is  likely  to  become  as  Avell  knOAvn  as  Shak- 
speare’s.  A  relative  of  yours  has  taken  the  pains  to  describe  it,  in 
a  late  number  of  the  Freeman's  Journal.  According  to  him,  it  would 
be  a  building  in  the  primitive  style  of  Irish  architecture.  The  same, 


651 


“  KIROVAN  ”  UNMASKED. 

very  likely,  which  prevailed  when  the  round  towers  were  constructed. 
Up  stairs  would  be  up  a  ladder  to  what  is  called  a  loft.  And  if 
Father  M.  heard  confessionf^there,  I  can  see  the  great  propriety  of 
one  or  more  candles  on  the  table.  For  according  to  the  primitive 
architecture  of  Ireland,  light  was  received  into  the  dwellings, 
either  horizontally,  by  the  door,  or  vertically  by  the  chimney.  The 
former  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  ingress  and  egress,  and  the  lat¬ 
ter  for  the  double  purpose  of  always  letting  the  smoke  out.,  and 
sometimes  letting  the  day  in.  If  then,  Father  M.  had  heard  con¬ 
fessions  in  such  a  place,  without  one  or  more  candles  on  the  table, 
what  a  beautiful  theme  this  circumstance  would  have  afforded  to  a 
morbid  imagination  like  yours. 

Sir,  I  feel  somewhat  humbled  at  being  obliged,  as  a  reviewer,  to 
notice  this,  as  well  as  other  portions  of  your  “  Kirwan’s”  letters, 
which,  in  my  opinion,  propriety  should  have  induced  you  to  leave  un¬ 
der  the  protection  of  domestic  privacy.  If  you  were  still  a  Catholic, 
like  your  pious,  albeit  uneducated,  mother,  you  would  feel  j-ather 
proud  than  otherwise  of  what  appears  to  be  the  fact  as  regards  the 
humility  of  your  ancestral  “  halls.”  Poverty  is  not  regarded,  by 
those  with  Avhom  you  now  associate,  as  respectable.  And  yet  it 
has  been  ennobled  by  the  example  of  Our  Redeemer  and  Ilis 
Apostles.  It  is  still  ennobled,  in  the  estimation  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  when  it  is  selected  by  voluntary  choice,  and  is  never  dis¬ 
honorable,  except  Avhen  it  is  immediately  connected  with,  or  result¬ 
ing  from  moral  guilt. 

Our  glorious  Catholic  ancestors  were  driven  back  into  the  cabins 
of  Irish  primitive  life ;  and  Protestantism,  in  anticipation  of  the  good 
things  of  hea,ven,  made  sure  also  of  the  good  things  of  the  earth.  The 
churches,  the  glebe  lands,  the  monasteries,  the  castles  and  domains 
of  our  Catholic  forefathers,  became  the  usurped  inheritance  of 
Protestantism,  by  right  of  legal  spoliation,  from  the  period  when 
the  Reformation  took  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  into  its  own 
hand — aided  of  course  by  acts  of  Parliament.  , 

AVhen,  therefore,  you  describe  the  Catholic  “  Priests”  “  moving 
about  as  spectres,  as  if  afraid  of  the  light  of  day,”  you  trace  a  pic¬ 
ture  which  seems  to  call  up  to  my  imagination  the  lives  of  the 
Apostles,  and  of  their  Divine  Master,  going  about  meekly  and  un¬ 
obtrusively  in  the  discharge  of  their  heavenly  mission  ;  whilst  the 
contrast  suggested  by  the  antithesis  as  in  favor  of  tlie  Presbyterian 
ministry,  would  suggest  to  my  mind  the  idea  of  an  inflated  clerical 
pedant  that  makes  the  avenues  of  life  narrow  wherever  he  passes 
in  bustling  and  gassy  x'otundity.  But  I  merely  hope  that  you, 
iudged  by  your  own  pen,  are  not  a  fair  s])ecimeu  of  the  class  to 
which  you  now  belong.  At  all  events,  I  “  call  in  question”  the  de¬ 
scription  of  “  our  house,”  and  hope  that  you  and  Mr.  Prime  will 
maintain  it. 

V.  You  state  as  a  fact,  that  “on  your  first  remembered  journey  to 
Dublin,  you  passed  by  a  place  called,  if  you  mistake  not,  St.  John’s 
Well.”  You  tell  me  that  I  know  it  is  one  of  the  holy  wells.  I 


652 


ARCHBISHOP  HHGHES. 


answer  that  I  know  nothing  about  it.  But  you  appear  all  at  cnca 
singularly  scrupulous,  and  I  look  upon  the  phrase,  “  If  I  mistake 
not,”  as  equivalent  to  the  phrase,  “iToung  as  I  was,”  when  you 
AV’ere  already  a  “  clerk  in  the  store.”  I  cannot  dwell  on  your  evi¬ 
dence  respecting  what  was  “  called,  if  you  mistake  not,  St.  J ohn’s 
Well ;  but  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  story  is,  either  in 
whole  or  in  part,  a  fabrication.  It  is  found  on  page  21  on  your  first 
series,  and  I  call  your  attention  to  it,  in  the  hope  that  you  and  Mr. 
Prime  shall  maintain  what  you  have  there  stated  as  facts. 

VI.  The  story  about  the  sun  “  dancing”  in  the  heavens  and  in 
the  chapels  on  Easter  Sunday  morning,  and  the  attempt  to  produce 
a  delusive  corresponding  phenomenon  in  the  chapel  by  “  an  in¬ 
dividual  managing  concealed  mirrors,  so  as  to  produce  the  wonder¬ 
ful  effect,”  (page  27,)  I  pronounce  to  be  equally  a  fabrication,  or  a 
mere  playful  supposition,  uttered  for  the  amusement  of  children,  I 
hope  that  you  and  your  endorser  will  see  to  this  matter  also. 

VII.  Again:  you  tell  us  as  a  fact,  that  you  “saw  good  papists 
eating  eggs  and  fish  and  getting  drunk  on  these  days  (Fridays  and 
Saturdays).  But  that  this  was  no  violation  of  the  laws  of  the 
Church.” — page  32,  This,  sir,  as  far  as  regards  what  you  call 
“  good  papists”  and  “  getting  drunk,”  and  yet  not  violating  the  laws 
of  the  Church,  is  a  fabrication. 

This  same  page  records  the  taming  goint  of  your  life,  the  crisis  of 
your  conversion.  You  came  to  the  conclusion  that  as  regards  the 
eating  of  meat  on  one  day,  and  not  on  another,  God  could  not  make 
it  a  sin  by  distinction  of  days — so  that  if  a  man  can  plow  on 
Thursday,  by  your  rule,  God  cannot  make  it  a  sin  for  him  to  do  so 
on  Sunday.  And  here,  in  point  of  fact,  is  the  first,  and  perhaps  the 
best,  reason  which  your  letters  furnish  for  your  conversion.  It 
seems  that  after  mature  deliberation,  you  found  that  to  forbid  a 
man’s  eating  meat  on  Friday  is  an  unreason.able  regulation,  and  you 
rejected  it.  It  would  appear  by  inference  that  as  regards  meat,  on 
such  days,  ivhat  your  conscience  approved  your  appetite  appropri¬ 
ated  ;  and  with  singular  naivete,  you  tell  us  that  “  as  far  as  you  now 
remember  this  was  your  first  step  toward  light  and  freedom^ — page  32. 

By-the-by,  this  calls  uji  a  period  in  the  calamities  of  Ireland  which 
had  almost  passed  into  oblivion ;  and  which  corresponds  more  or 
less  with  that  of  your  conversion  from  Popery. 

About  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  ago.  Lord  Farnham,  and  other 
gentlemen,  of  the  evangelical  nobility,  introduced  into  Ireland  a 
religious  movement  called  “  the  second  Reformation.”  It  was  a  sea¬ 
son  of  distress  among  the  peasantry,  such  as  succeeds,  year  by  year, 
in  the  history  of  our  unfortunate  native  country.  Lord  Farnham 
had  almost  obtained  a  patent  from  the  legislature  for  the  efficiency, 
and  admirable  simplicity  of  the  new  contrivance  for  converting  the 
Irish.  It  Avas  this.  The  kitchens  Avere  turned  into  scriptural  read¬ 
ing-rooms  for  the  starving  population  of  the  neighborhood,  once  a 
Aveek.  The  day  selected  happened  to  be  Friday,  in  almost  all 
cases.  After  Bible-reading,  soup  Avas  given  out  instead  of  syllo- 


653 


“  KIRWAN  ”  UNMASKED. 

gisms,  and  the  “  second  Reformation”  went  on  admirably  imtil  the 
potatoes  of  harvest  became  mature  enough  for  the  people’s  use. 
Lord  Farnham  and  his  colleagues  sxxpposed  that  if  the  landed  pro~ 
prietors  and  gentry  could  only  succeed  in  establishing  an  amicable  under^ 
standing  between  the  conscience  tmdi  the  stomach  of  the  “lower  otdcrs,” 
Ireland  would  soon  become  a  Protestant  countiy.  But  I  need  not 
dwell  upon  it,  as  you  are  old  enough  to  remember  how  it  was  ridi¬ 
culed  by  Cobbett  and  other  writers  wherever  the  English  language 
was  spoken. 

Now  I  do  not  say  that  you  are  a  child  of  the  “second  Reforma¬ 
tion,”  but  the  fact  of  your  having  made  the  first  step  toward  light 
and  freedom  through  the  medium  of  something  like  a  Friday -beef¬ 
steak,  looks  very  much  like  it. 

See,  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray  of  Elizabethtown,  into  what  a  posi¬ 
tion  your  “  playing  pranks”  behind  “  Kirwan’s”  mask  has  betrayed 
you  !  ! 

Besides  the  bow  which  Mr.  Prime  has  volunteered  you,  you  have 
made  one  for  yourself — still  under  the  mask,  however.  You  tell  us 
that,  even  before  “  you  took  up  your  pen  you  were  not  unknown  to 
the  men  of  our  age,  not  unsolicited.”  ...  The  men  of  our 
age”  (!  ! !) — or  of  any  age,  are  very  few,  and  posterity  has  reserved 
to  itself,  almost  absolutely,  the  right  of  determining  who  they  are. 
To  save  your  modesty,  therefore,  I  am  obliged  to  suppose  that  the 
printer  has  made  a  mistake  here,  and  that  if  one  could  have  the 
benefit  of  a  peep  at  your  manuscript,  it  would  be  found  that  you 
had  written,  “  the  men  of  our  (vill)-age.” 

Ah,  sir,  it  seems  that  your  misfortune  through  life  has  been  to 
have  been  under  the  influence  of  bad  advisers^since  you  tell  us 
you  were  “  solicited”  to  write  against  Popery.  The  circumstance 
reminds  me  of  an  anecdote  which  I  have  lately  read  in  a  London 
paper,  and  wdiich  I  trust  will  not  offend  you,  as  it  has  already  been 
employed  in  a  description  of  England’s  highest  Protestant  nobility. 
It  seems  a  drover  found  it  difficult  to  keep  his  cattle  together  in  the 
crowded  approaches  to  the  English  meti'opolis.  And  in  his  ex¬ 
tremity  he  called  out  to  his  neighbor,  “  I  wish  you  would  loan  me 
a  bark  of  your  dog.”  T^ou  know,  sir,  that  broad  ridicule  is  the  forte 
of  the  English  as  compared  to  the  French,  and  a  Cockney  wit  tells 
us  that  Lord  John  Russell  has  turned  the  drover’s  hint  into  the 
philosophy  of  politics,  and  that  whenever  Ms  herd  betray  a  ten¬ 
dency  to  straggle  from  the  whig  path,  he  “  borrows  a  bark”  from 
Sir  llobert  Peel.  How^ever  this  may  be,  I  am  satisfied  that  “  the 
men  of  our  age,”  if  there  be  any  such,  would  never  have  borrowed  a 
bark  of  you. 

This  letter  is  already  too  long,*and  I  must  briiSg  it  to  a  close. 
But  in  doing  so,  I  cannot  forget  how  often  you  have  told  us  that 
you  Avere  once  an  infidel.  There  are  evidences  scattered  up  and 
down  through  your  letters,  which,  to  an  unprejudiced  and  impartial 
reader,  ivould  make  it  appear  doubtful  whether  you  are  still  so. 
Some  of  these  I  shall  jiresent  in  my  next.  T  shall  not  venture  to 


654 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


pronounce  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  as  the  Almighty  alone  can 
penetrate  the  hearts  of  men. 

In  the  tnean  time,  however,  I  remain,  with  increasing  pity,  but 
with  undiminished  good  will, 

John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  Hew  York. 


LETTER  V 

Kirwan^’’  alias  the  Rev.  Nichola?  Murray.,  D.  D..,  of  Elizabeth- 

toivn.,  New  Jersey  ; 

Dear  Sir — It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  the  serpent  of  infi¬ 
delity  was  ever  permitted  to  nestle  in  your  bosom ; — for  when  I  con¬ 
sider  that  you  reduce  the  standard  of  revelation  to  the  test  of  com¬ 
mon  sense — when  I  consider  the  looseness  of  your  moral  principles, 
so  far  forth  as  they  are  exhibited  by  your  own  pen — when  I  behold 
the  spirit  of  Voltaire  and  Thomas  Paine  in  the  jDrofanity  and  ribal¬ 
dry  with  which  you  treat  every  sacred  subject  which  your  common 
sense  does  not  approve,  I  am  compelled  to  say  that  even  on  the 
sup]'C)sition  that  infidelity  had  been  expelled  from  your  breast  be¬ 
fore  the  writing  of  your  letters,  still, 

“  The  trail  of  the  serpent  is  over  them  all.” 

Your  moral  principles,  as  set  forth  by  yourself,  even  in  my  regard, 
are  much  more  in  keeping  with  what  might  be  expected  from  a 
skeptic  of  the  woidd,  than  from  a  clergyman  of  any  Christian  de¬ 
nomination.  You  have  the  grossness  to  impute  to  me  that  I  am 
consciously  a  deciver  of  my  fellow-creatures,  and  yet  you  do  not 
hesitate  to  express  respect  for  my  character.  Is  this  a  principle  of 
Presbyterian  inculcation  ?  Or  has  it  shot  up  through  the  Confes¬ 
sion  of  Faith  from  the  older  and  deeper  root  of  your  early  infi¬ 
delity  ? 

Again,  you  urge  me  to  renounce  the  Catholic  religion,  in  which, 
you  suppose,  I  do  not  believe ;  and  yet,  with  that  loose  morality 
Avhich  would  better  become  a  professed  infidel,  you  implicitly  en¬ 
courage  me  to  persevere  in  carrying  on  the  supposed  villany  of  de¬ 
ception  !  The  reader  would  hardly  believe  this  statement  possible, 
so  I  shall  quote  your  own  words  to  prove  it.  You  say  ;  “  And  since 
in  the  maturity  of  my  judgment  I  have  examined  this  matter,  I  have 
greatly  commended  your  wisdom  in  tintholding  the  Bible  from  the 
people.  If  I  were  a  Bishop  or  a  Pjriest  of  your  Church  I  would  do  tlu 
same.'''’ — page  29^  So  then,  dear  “  Kirwan,”  you  have  the  candor  to 
avow  on  principle,  and  in  the  ‘''‘maturity  of  your  judgment^  that  if 
your  lot  had  been  cast  among  villians,  you  would  be  as  great  a  villain 
as  any  of  them.  Is  this  avowal  worthy  of  even  an  infidel  ? 

That  you  should  be  where  and  what  you  now  are,  is  easily  ac¬ 
counted  for — by  the  ignorance  of  your  youth  which  you  have  de- 


655 


“  KIKWAK  ”  UNMASICSD. 

scribed,  find  tlie  po\  erty  which  yon  have  not  described.  Ignorance 
and  poverty  are  mysterious  dispensations  of  God’s  providence. 
And,  on  that  account,  I  would  treat  wnth  indulgence  whatever 
errors  in  ynvr  early  life  are  to  be  ascribed  to  either.  But  for  the 
deliberate  conclusions,  uttered  in  your  recent  letters,  and  in  the 
“maturity  of  your  judgment,”  in  which  you  avow  yourself  ready 
to  act  an  evil  part  with  Bishops  and  Priests,  on  the  mere  condition 
of  your  having  been  one  of  them,  I  cannot  but  hold  you  bnmorfilly 
responsible. 

Thank  God,  how^ever,  you  are  neither  a  Bishop  nor  a  Priest ;  and 
your  once  hai  ing  been  talked  of  as  a  candidate  for  Maynooth,  was, 
happily  for  the  Church,  only  “  talk”  after  all.  You  are  a  Presby¬ 
terian  minister  in  Elizabethtown,  where  your  ministry  can  do  no 
harm ;  for,  if  your  creed  be  true,  those  who  are  foreordained  to 
eternal  life,  will  be  saved  loith,  as  -well  as  ivilhout,  your  pastoral  of- 
iices. 

In  my  last  letter  I  showed,  according  to  your  own  account,  that 
the  proliibition  to  eat  flesh-meat  on  Fridays  and  Saturdays  was  the 
first  2)ractical  reason  for  your  change  of  religion.  It  was  an  “un¬ 
reasonable  regulation,  and  you  rejected  it ;  and  as  flir  as  you  now 
remember  this  was  your  first  step  tov/ard  light  and  freedom.” — 
page  32.  On  the  very  next  jiage  we  find  you  soliloquizing  in  a 
Style  of  infidel  rationalism,  which  Pagan  Greece,  or  Protestant 
Germany,  could  hardly  have  surpassed.  “I  thus  reasoned  with  my¬ 
self  ;  God  is  a  spiritual  and  intelligent  Being,  and  he  I’equires  an 
intelligent  worship.  What  worship  I  render  Him  in  the  Mass  I 
know  not,”  (of  course,  since  you  had  forgotten  your  Catechism,) 
“  ray  iiitelligent  worship  only  is  acceptfible  to  Him,  and  is  beneficial 
to  me.  1  am  a  I’ational  being,  and  1  degrade  my  nature,  and  insult 
my  Maker,  in  offering  to  Him  a  worshij)  in  which  neitlier  my  rea¬ 
son,  nor  His  intelligence,  is  consulted.” — page  33.  Now,  dear  “Kir- 
wan,”  when  we  consider  the  state  of  your  mind  at  the  period  when 
this  pretended  soliloquy  occurred,  a  perfect  blank  as  to  all  re¬ 
ligious  instruction,”  it  becomes  a  grave  question,  which  I  leave  to 
the  decision  of  casuists  in  mental  philosophy,  whether  or  not,  in  the 
higher  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  you  could  rightfully  call  yourself 
a  “  rational  being.” 

But  I  make  the  quotation  for  another  purpose.  The  whole  pas¬ 
sage  betrays  a  strong  affinity  to  the  spirit  of  Paine’s  “Age  of 
Reason.”  The  high  contracting  parties  w^ere  God  on  the  one  side, 
and  yourself  on  the  other.  Both  were  intelligent  beings — your  Maker 
would  be  insulted^  and  your  nature  would  be  degraded^  if  you  held 
the  intercourse  of  worship  with  Him,  except  on  the  principle  of  recip¬ 
rocal  intelligence.  You  had  just  tasted  of  the  forbidden  food  on 
the  preceding  page,  and  acquired  the  knowledge  of  “good  and  evil.” 
You  had  partaken  of  Egypt’s  fleshpjots.,  and  the  manna  had  become 
insipid  and  distasteful.  For  your  mind,  there  was  no  “intelligence” 
in  it,  and  so,  very  naturally,  you  gave  uj) — the  IMass. 

But  now,  the  floodgates  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  being 


656 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


once  opened,  we  may  expect  the  mysteries  of  revelation  to  be  inun¬ 
dated  by  the  deluge  of  your  “  intelligence,”  your  “  reason,”  yoia 
“common  sense.”  Accordingly,  the  adorable  mystery  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Eucharist,  in  treating  of  Avhich  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  were 
struck  with  holy  dread  and  religious  awe,  is  described  by  you  as  an 
“  absurdity.” — page  35.  So  it  has  always  ajipeared  to  the  animal 
man, 

I  need  scarcely  inform  you,  sir,  that  the  infidels  of  all  ages  would 
have  been  quite  satisfied,  if  they  had  been  allowed  to  construe  the 
Jiible  according  to  what  they  call  common  sense.  In  reference  to 
this  standard,  they  and  you  appear  to  be  perfectly  .agreed.  Thus, 
you  make  the  Ilible  and  common  sense  the  ultimate  tribunals  in  the 
decision  of  religious  belief.  Thus,  in  the  exercise  of  common  sense, 
you  no  doubt  deny  the  Divinity  of  Christ  implicitly,  at  least,  since 
you  call  it  “  blasphemous”  to  designate  the  ever  glorious  and 
Blessed  A^irgin  Mary,  “  as  the  Mother  of  God.”  If  the  Person  of 
Christ  was  simply  Divine,  .and  Alary  was  truly  his  mother,  she  is, 
and  h.as  been  .always  called,  Alother  of  God,  as  well  as  mother  of 
man  ;  and  your  denial  of  this  can  be  logic.ally  sust.ained,  only  hy 
your  denial  of  the  Savioar‘’s  Divinity,  In  fact,  I  suppose  your  “com¬ 
mon  sense”  lias  already  pronounced  against  the  mystery  of  the  In¬ 
carnation.  Thus  also,  you  take  sides  with  the  infidels  of  the  Re¬ 
deemer’s  age,  as  well  as  of  our  own,  and  you  tell  us,  in  spite  of 
the  evidence  furnished  by  Him  in  His  human  character,  and  assert 
that  God  only  can  forgive  sins. — page  67.  In  the  spirit  of  a  true  in¬ 
fidel,  you  describe  the  priesthood  of  the  Catholic  Church,  through¬ 
out  the  world,  and  for  eighteen  centuries,  as  having  been  actuated 
solely  by  the  love  of  money. — page  70.  Again  still,  in  the  spirit  of 
the  inlidel,  you  sneer  at  the  history  of  religion  as  counter  to  your 
appeal  to  “  common  sense,”  and  tell  us,  that  “  with  you  the  author¬ 
ity  of  our  popes  and  councils  are  not  worth  a  penny.” — page  70. 

The  angel  G.abriel  saluted  the  Blessed  Virgin  Alary,  as  t,he  Scrip¬ 
ture  records,  “  Hail,  full  of  grace  ;”  but  you,  the  Presbyterian  min¬ 
ister  of  Elizabethtown,  speak  of  her  as  you  would  of  a  female  sel¬ 
ling  c.andies  at  the  corners  of  the  street,  from  whom  you  had  just 
bought  a  supply  for  the  young  “Kirwans,”  and  call  lier  the  “good 
woman”  condescendingly. — page  74.  The  Holy  Eucharist  under  your 
“  common  sense,”  you  declhre  to  be  so  “  absurd  as  to  defeat  itself.” 
— page  75.  A'ou  decide  that  the  words,  “  This  is  my  body,”  mean, 
this  is  not  my  body,  and  with  that  swelling  vanity  peculiar  to  an 
evangelical  minister  who  takes  “  common  sense”  as  his  rule  for  in¬ 
terpreting  Holy  Scripture,  yet  exhibit  your  sleight  of  hand  with  a 
puff  of  self-complacency,  and  call  upon  us  to  admire — “just  see 
how  a  little  common  sense  simplifies  every  thing.” — page  76. 

Lest  I  should  interpose  by  -venturing  to  suggest  that  a  thing 
ought  to  be  received  for  what  our  Saviour  says  it  is,  you  warn  me 
off,  and  tell  me  in  true,  arrogant  style,  that  “  you  will  have  none  of 
my  nonsense  about  the  substance  contained  under  the  species. — 
page  76.  Now,  dear  “Kir wan,”  I  have  scriptural  authority  for 


“kiewan”  ijxmasked.  657 

what  you  here  call  nonsense.  The  Holy  Ghost  descended  on  the 
Apostles  under  the  species  of  “  tongues  of  fire He  descended  on 
the  Saviour  under  the  species  of  “  a  dove,”  and  you  have  decided 
tiiat  the  distinction  of  the  Evangelists  between  the  species  and  the 
substance  is  “  nonsense ;  ...  it  is  ‘  dai’kening  counsel  by  words 
without  knowledge.’” — page  76.  I  recommend  your  case  to  the 
General  Assembly.  In  fact,  you  have  become  so  enlightened  in 
matters  of  dogmatic  theology,  under  the  inspiration  of  “  common 
sense,”  that  you  are  almost  fit  for  a  residence  in  Boston,  where  the 
Heverend  Theodore  Parker  will  no  doubt  have  the  charity  to  ex¬ 
tend  to  you  the  right  hand  of  Christian  fellowship. 

In  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  your  infidel  pi'inciple  of  “com¬ 
mon  sense”  as  interpreter  of  Scripture,  prompts  you  to  say  that 
“  nothing  equals  it  in  absurdity  in  all  Paganism.” — page  76.  Pray, 
did  it  ever  come  in  the  way  of  your  extensive  reading  to  have  seen  a 
book  called  the  “  Pkesbyterian  Confession's  of  Faith,  as  amended 
and  ratified  by  the  General  Assembly  at  their  sessions  in  1821,  and 
printed  by  Tower  and  Hogan  in  1827  ?”  If  so,  turn  to  pages  73 
and  74,  and  you  will  find  it  ruled  that  in  certain  cases  men  are 
placed  by  their  Creator  in  such  a  situation,  that  if  they  do  a  thing 
they  “  commit  a  sin  against  God,”  and  if  they  do  not  do  it,  they  “  com¬ 
mit  a  greater  sin  P’’  Here  is  a  Presbyterian  doctrine  to  which  you  might 
apply  your  “  common  sense”  with  some  advantage  to  your  own 
brethren.  The  rich  theme  of  ridicule  Avhich  it  would  furnish  for  a 
pen  of  such  profanity  as  yours,  will  be  obvious  to  you  at  a  glance. 

You  tell  us  that  “the  manner  of  our  public  worship  is  heathen, 
and  was  originally  adopted  for  the  seducing  of  the  Heatlien  to 
Christianity.” — page  82.  This  idea  would  seem  to  have  been  de¬ 
rived  by  you  rather  from  Gibbon,  than  from  Voltaire  or  Thomas 
Paine.  You  have  the  candor,  however,  to  admit  the  high  antiquity 
of  our  manner  of  worship,  when  you  describe  the  use  to  which  it 
was  applied  in  the  primitive  Church.  The  conversion  of  nations  has 
been  itself  regarded  as  a  proof  of  the  Divine  origin  of  Christianity. 
You,  however,  have  discovered  that  it  was  owing  to  a  system  of  se¬ 
duction^  carried  on  through  our  Catliolic  “  manner  of  worship,”  by 
which  the  j)oor  Heathen  were  “  seduced  ”  into  the  new  Religion  I 
Could  any  but  an  intidel  give  utterance  to  such  a  sentiment  ? 

But  detail  is  unnecessary.  The  high  mysteries  of  the  Christian 
faith  you  reduce  to  the  standard  of  “  common  sense,”  on  almost 
every  page.  Thus :  “  Extreme  unction,”  you  have  already  pronounced 
“  extreme  nonsense.” — page  82. 

“How  simple  and  ‘common  sense’  is  all  this.” — S.  S.  page  27. 
“  Blessed  be  God,  you  have  not  turned  your  keys  on  the  ‘  common 
sense’  of  the  world.” — page  29.  Of  your  infidel  ribaldry  I  will  give 
but  one  specimen,  which  I  think  can  hardly  be  surpassed  in  the  an¬ 
nals  of  sneering  skepticism.  “Your  daily  changing  of  a  wafer  into 
the  real  body  of  Christ,  and  then  eating  him,  beats  any  thing  St. 
EYcliin  ever  did.  Your  preparing  an  old  sinner  for  heaven  by  rub¬ 
bing  him  with  olive  oil,  and  then  opening  its  gates  to  him  by  the 
42 


658 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


keys  which  are  only  in  your  possession,  far  surpasses  Fechin’s  turn- 
ing  acorns  to  pork.  We  believe  the  swine  themselves  are  constantly 
doing  this  in  our  Western  woods.” — page  39.  You  tell  us  that  the 
respect  entertained  by  Catholics  for  relics  has  the  true  relic  for  its 
object — and  that,  on  Catholic  principles,  “  it  is  all  the  same  ”  that  the 
object  of  reverence  or  respect  should  be  the  head  of  “  St.  Paul”  or 
the  head  of  “  Balaam’s  Ass and  you  add  in  your  oivn  name^  and 
v/ith  a  sneer  becoming  an  infidel,  “awe?  I mpyosie  the  difference^  sir, 
is  very  littleP — page  70.  So  then,  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray,  you  re¬ 
gard  the  head  of  an  ass  and  that  of  an  apostle  with  equal  respect ; 
for  the  reason,  no  doubt,  that  in  your  estimation,  both  are  figura¬ 
tively  of  the  same  sjiecies,  or  perhaps  that  in  this  instance  both  are 
scriptural  subjects. 

It  seems  the  Tract  Societies  and  Sunday  Schools  have  adopted 
your  letters,  and  given  them  a  very  extensive  circulation.  I  do  not 
know  a  shorter  method  of  turning  the  young  who  may  be  subject  to 
their  training  into  infidels,  than  by  placing  such  a  book  in  their 
hands.  Each  of  their  pupils  has  as  good  a  right  to  explain  the 
Bible  according  to  what  he  will  call  “  common  sense,”  as  you  have 
had.  But  they  will  not  be  restrained  in  their  blasphemous  ribaldry 
by  the  limits  which  a  black  coat  and  a  white  cravat  have  prescribed 
for  your  pen. 

They  will  apply  the  arguments  of  “  common  sense  ”  which  you 
have  wielded  against  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist,  to  the  ante¬ 
cedent  doctrines  of  original  sin,  and  the  Atonement,  and  they  will 
find  no  “  common  sense  ”  in  either.  But  why  should  I  moralize 
for  you  on  such  a  subject,  when  I  have  no  evidence  to  prove  that 
such  a  result  has  not  been  the  very  object  of  your  letters ;  and  that 
your  zeal  against  Popery  is  not  merely  the  gilding  of  the  infidel  pill 
which  you  would  wish  to  see  swallowed  by  tract  distributors,  Sun¬ 
day  school  teachers,  Sunday  school  children,  and  all. 

Sir,  the  language  and  sentiment  which  I  have  had  to  pass  under 
review  in  this  letter  are  so  unworthy  of  a  man  professing  Christi¬ 
anity,  that  I  must  wfithhold,  at  its  close,  even  the  expression  of  my 
pity  for  you,  whilst  I  cherish  toward  you,  as  usual,  good  wishes  and 
good  will.  ^  John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


LETTER  VI. 

To  “  Kirwanj'  alias  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Murray,  D.  D.,  of  Elizabethtown, 
New  Jersey : 

Dear  Sir — The  task  which  I  imposed  on  myself  at  the  commence¬ 
ment  of  these  letters  is  nearly  accomplished.  1  wished  to  investigate 
the  alleged  reasons  ivhich  induced  you  to  forsake  the  Church — and 
wliich  forbid  your  return.  The  result  is  before  the  public,  and  may 
be  briefly  summed  up. 

You  will  observe  that  I  have  not  pretended  to  defe  iid  a  single 


659 


“  KIRWAN  ”  UNMASKED. 

Catholic  doctl'ine  from  your  coarse  and  profane  invective — that  I 
have  not  raised  the  <piostion  with  you  as  to  whether  those  dochrines 
are  true  or  talse  :  that  I  have  contined  myself  to  watching  narrowly 
the  state  of  your  mind,  your  motives  and  movements,  as  described 
by  yourself,  until  I  saw  you  clearly  beyond  the  bounds  of  the 
Catholic  Church  and  landed  in  the  cold,  dark  regions  of  infidelity. 
If  your  own  statements  as  to  the  utter  ignorance  of  your  mind  in 
regard  to  any  and  all  religion  when  you  became  an  infidel,  are  to  be 
relied  on,  it  follows  that  in  assigning  the  reasons  for  your  change, 
as  set  forth  in  your  letters,  you  have  been  attempting  a  gross  im¬ 
position  on  the  credulity  of  your  Protestant  readers.  You  give  a 
double  certificate  of  the  process  of  your  conversion.  One  side 
attests  considerable  religious  information  :  the  other  certifies  bluntly 
that  '"'•your  mind  was  a  'perfect  blank  as  to  all  7'eligious  instructions?'' 
Both  are  from  your  own  pen.  It  remains  for  you  to  reconcile  the 
contradiction  as  well  as  you  can. 

Allow  me,  in  the  mean  time,  to  suggest  the  only  plausible,  natural 
and  satisfactory  reason  for  the  important  event  in  regard  to  which 
you  have  taken  such  superfluous  pains  to  enlighten  the  public. 

It  is  understood  that  you  arrived  in  this  country  a  poor  Irish 
orphan  boy.  This  was  not  your  fault.  It  might  have  been  your 
merit.  Whether  you  were  then  an  infidel  or  a  Catholic  is  best 
known  to  yourself.  At  all  events  you  attracted  the  charitable 
notice  of  certain  Presbyterian  patrons.  In  the  intentions  of  their 
benevolence  toward  you,  your  renunciation  of  Popery  was  a  con¬ 
dition  either  already  accomplished  or  necessarily  implied  as  a  sine 
cpm  non  of  your  education.  Now,  what  could  be  more  natural, 
under  these  circumstances,  than  that  you  shoxdd  become  a  Protes¬ 
tant,  after  the  fashion  of  training  provided,  and  the  creed  professed 
by  your  patrons?  If  in  all  this  your  conscience  approved  of  what 
your  friends  recommended,  so  much  the  better  for  you.  I  only 
mention  the  circumstances  to  supply  a  hiatus  in  your  narrative. 
They  are  quite  suflicient  to  explain  your  conversion,  and  the  public 
would  not  be  so  unreasonable,  had  you  made  them  acquainted  with 
all  this,  as  to  ask  for  any  other.  It  is  now  nearly  thirty  years  since 
these  tilings  took  place.  You  begin  to  be  well  stricken  in  years — 
you  are  approaching  the  confines  of  old  age ;  and  the  same  indulgent 
public  would  have  dispensed  with  your  reasons  for  not  return¬ 
ing  now  to  the  Communion  which  you  thus  forsook  in  your 
boyhood.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that,  in  cases  like  yours,  a 
wife  and  children  are  substantial  objections  to  such  a  step.  When 
the  husband  and  father  is,  moreover,  a  Protestant  clergyman,  it 
requires  an  extraordinary  grace  to  overcome  them. 

I  now  leave  it  to  yourself  to  say,  whether  it  was  not  unwise  on 
your  part,  after  having  appeared  with  your  natural  countenance  so 
long,  to  put  on  the  mask  in  the  fiftieth  year  of  your  age  ?  Whether 
it  was  worthy  of  your  rank  and  station  among  the  men  of  our  age, 
to  weave  a  narrative  of  your  conversion  with  materials  derived  from 
imagination^  while  the  plain  history  of  the  case  lay  open  before  your 


630 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


consciousness  and  memory?  Yet  when  I  regard  tiie  profane  spirit 
of  your  letters  ;  when  I  consider  that  you  imitate  closely  infidel 
tactics  against  Christianity  in  your  mode  of  assault — that  you  ridicule 
where  you  cannot  reason — that  where  you  pretend  to  reason  it  is 
not  against  the  Catholic  doctrine,  as  Catholics  hold  it,  but  against  such 
doctrine  misrepresented,  turned  into  burlesque,  and  thus  fitted  for 
your  purpose — when  I  reflect  on  all  this,  I  am  not  surprised  that 
you  constructed  your  laboratory  in  the  “  camera  obscura,”  and 
shunned  the  open  day — that  you  insulted  the  memory  of  a  fallen 
but  not  otherwise  dishonorable  priest,  by  affixing  his  name  to  your 
letters  rather  than  your  own. 

You  wish  me  to  dispute  with  you  on  matters  of  general  con¬ 
troversy.  I  must  beg  leave  to  decline  the  proposed  honor.  I  can¬ 
not  consent  to  dispute  with  any  man  for  whom  I  feel  no  respect, 
and  therefore  I  can  enter  into  no  controversy  with  you  ;  especially 
until  you  have  extricated  yourself  from  the  inconsistencies  and  self- 
contradictions  pointed  out  in  this  review.  You  suggest  “  the  inference 
that  I  am  a  devil.”— p.  64.  You  proclaim  “  your  high  respect  for 
me.” — p.  75.  Now,  sir,  I  entertain  no  respect  for  any  man,  and 
especially  a  Minister  of  the  Gos'pel,  who  can  cherish  and  avow  “his 
high  respect”  for  “  a  devil,’’  even  by  inference. 

You  wrote  your  letters  in  the  midst  of  the  awful  famine  which 
strewed  the  highways  and  ditches  of  your  unhappy  country  with 
dead  bodies,  last  year.  Among  them  may  have  been  some  of  those 
for  whom,  Mr.  Prime  says,  you  wrote  your  letters,  viz.:  “  your 
kinsmen,  according  to  the  flesh.”  Now,  it  was  not  uncommon  for 
persons,  whose  Irish  hearts  had  not  become  withered  by  hostile 
seasoning,  to  become  insane,  during  that  awful  crisis — turned  into 
maniacs  by  the  news  of  an  hour.  Sectarianism  was  forgotten — 
humanity  was  stirred  to  its  depths  in  the  bosom  of  the  entire  Amer¬ 
ican  peojfle — Jews,  Christians,  Catholics,  Protestants,  Presbyterians, 
believers  and  unbelievers  of  every  name,  were  vying  with  each 
other  in  their  efibrts  to  send  bread  to  the  dying.  And  they  did 
send  bread ;  they  constructed  an  historical  monument  of  charity, 
glorious  as  the  land  which  reared  it,  and  sufficient  to  atone,  in  some 
measure,  for  the  bigotries  of  a  thousand  years.  It  was  in  the  midst 
of  this  death-struggle  of  your  native  land,  that  you  had  the  impiety 
to  invent,  and  the  inhumanity  to  apply,  the  following  profane  and 
horrible  pun  on  the  words  of  our  Saviour :  “  He  that  eats  this  bread 

will  never  hunger.  All  that  you  (Catholics)  have  to  do,  if  your 
principle  be  true,  is  to  give  your  wafer  to  the  poor  famishing  Irish,  and 
they  hunger  no  morel — page  77.  How  well  this  sustains  Mr.  Prime’s 
statement  that  in  writing  your  Kirwan’s  letters,  you  were  actuated 
by  a  “  sense  of  duty  to  your  kinsmen,  according  to  the  flesh,  your 
countrymen  and  brethren !” 

But  supposing  I  were  to  enter  into  controversy  with  you  on 
general  topics,  it  is  manifest  that  besides  being  a  pa  ^ty,  you  claim  to 
be  a  witness,  an  advocate,  and  what  is  more,  Vk  judge,  in  your  own  cause ! 
You  profess  to  teach  me  what  the  Catholic  religion  is,  although  you 


6G1 


KIliWAN  ”  UNMASKED. 

had  “  forgotten  your  Catechism  at  eighteen  years  of  age,”  and  I 
take  it  for  granted  you  have  never  looked  into  it  since,  except 
in  tlie  same  spirit  and  for  the  same  purposes  which  induce  the  infidel 
to  read  the  Scriptures.  If  I  pretend  to  know  any  thing  of  my 
religion,  you  politely  tell  me  that  “  you  will  have  none  of  my  non¬ 
sense.”  Why,  then,  do  you  ask  me  to  enter  into  controversy  with 
you  ?  Besides,  who  would  be  the  judge  ?  “  Common  sense,”  you 

reply.  But  ivho!<e  common  sense,  yours  or  mine  ?  If  you  submit  to 
mine,  I  condemn  your  position  at  once.  If  you  will  not  submit  to 
mine,  what  right  have  you  to  suppose  that  I  should  submit  to  yours  ? 
To  what  tribunal  do  you  appeal  ?  That  of  history  ?  But  its 
authority  with  you  is  not  worth  a  penny !  To  the  Bible  ?  But  the 
Bible  by  itself  will  give  no  decision.  It  requires  an  interpreter^  as 
much  as  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  country.  Who  shall  be 
the  interpreter  ?  Methinks  I  hear  you  speaking  of  your  “  common 
sense”  again  for  that  office — so  that  we  come  round  the  Protestant 
circle  to  the  starting  point. 

If  you  say  the  appeal  is  to  the  “  common  sense”  of  mankind  in 
general,  (restricting  the  term  to  those  who  profess  Christianity,)  the 
verdict  will  not  be  unanimous ;  but  it  will  be  in  my  favor  by  a 
mjaority  of  three  to  one.  To  Avhat  tribunal,  then,  would  you  be 
willing  to  submit,  in  case  I  were  disposed  to  join  issue  with  you  in  a 
controversy  on  the  great  questions  on  which  Catholics  and  Protes¬ 
tants  are  divided  ?  But  the  inquiry  is  purely  hypothetical ;  for 
although  I  reserve  to  myself  the  right  of  reviewing  your  labors, 
when  I  think  proper,  depend  upon  it  there  will  not,  there  can  not  be, 
any  dogmatical  controversy  between  us.  If  your  genius  and  inclina¬ 
tion  lie  in  the  direction  of  profanity,  you  can  continue  to  insult  the 
mysteries  of  the  Catholic  faith  as  you  have  done.  For  this  you 
have  but  to  copy  from  Protestant  writers  of  your  own  class,  who 
have  gone  before  you.  But  I  see  no  reasons  why  I  should  under¬ 
take  to  discuss  the  reprint  of  their  opinions,  found  in  your  book, 
rather  tlian  in  the  original  text  as  found  in  their  own.  As  far  as 
either  come  in  the  way  of  my  subject,  I  shall  do  this  at  my  own 
con\  enience,  in  the  sequel  of  those  letters  which  I  have  addressed  to 
my  “  Dear  Reader,”  and  not  to  you.  In  the  present  review  I 
purposed  only  to  consider  those  little  incidents  of  waning  faith, 
accumulated  misgivings,  and  autobiography”  which  preceded,  or 
were  connected  with  your  transition  from  the  Catholic  faith  to  a 
Protestant  denomination.  This  portion  of  your  letters  was  your 
own,  and  was  (what  cannot  be  always  said  of  works  of  imagination) 
perfectly  original.  Having  done  this,  it  only  remains  for  me  to 
assure  you  of  my  sincere  good  wishes,  and  to  say,  for  the  present. 
Farewell. 


And  now  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  a  few  words  to  the 
general  reader  in  connection  with  this  subject.  What  advantage 
does  religion,  of  any  name,  derive  from  such  books  as  “  Kirwan’s” 
letters  ?  Do  they  promote  piety  ?  Is  charity  increased  by  them  ? 


662 


ARCHBISHOr  •  nUGIIES. 


Do  they  convert  Catholics?  Is  the  faith  of  Protestants  so  weak 
that  it  requires  the  support  of  such  buttresses  ?  The  questions  on 
which  Catholics  and  Protestants  are  so  unhappily  divided  have  been 
discussed  by  able  men  on  both  sides,  until  the  argument  has  been 
exhausted.  These  are  considerations  which  address  themselves  to 
sincere  minds  of  all  parties.  Those  who  will  reflect  a  moment  will 
perceive  that  the  Catholic  religion  has  withstood  and  now  witlistands 
such  attacks,  just  as  the  pyramid  does  the  assaults  of  the  wandering 
Arab.  If  it  were  the  system  which  such  writers  as  “  Kirwan”  repre¬ 
sents,  it  could  not  subsist  a  single  year.  Good  men  from  within, 
who  know  what  it  really  is,  would  not  stay  ;  good  men  from  with¬ 
out  would  not  come  to  it.  Now  a  whole  volume  might  be  filled 
with  the  names  of  illustrious  converts  from  the  different  denomina¬ 
tions  of  Protestantism,  w'ho,  after  mature  deliberation,  have  joined 
the  Church  within  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  many  of  them  at 
the  sacrifice  of  their  worldly  interests  and  prospects.  Ilow  could 
this  have  come  to  pass  if  Catholicity  were  what  these  writers 
allege  ? 

Does  not  this  single  fact  outweigh  a  ton  of  such  theory-books  as 
the  Key  of  Popery,  or  “  Kirwan’s  ”  Letters  ?  What  are  these  books 
generally  made  up  of?  Assertion,  party  invective,  charges,  some¬ 
times  entirely  flxlse,  and  always  grossly  exaggerated. 

Thus,  such  writers  as  I  speak  of  will  tell  you  that  the  Catholic 
Clergy  are  a  vast  corporation  of  swindlers.  But  how  will  any  man 
of  even  moderate  judgment  reconcile  this  with  the /oci  that  no  other 
clergymen  are  so  ready  to  encounter  danger  in  the  discharge  of 
their  ministry,  whether  in  the  cholera-hospitals,  the  fever-sheds,  or 
wherever  it  becomes  a  martyr  of  charity  to  meet  death  ?  They  will 
tell  you  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  the  deadly  enemy  of  liberty. 
But  then  how  comes  it  that  all  the  elements  and  principles  of  social 
right  and  civil  liberty  are  of  Catholic  origin,  and  that  the  best  law¬ 
yer  among  us  would  be  somewhat  puzzled  if  requested  to  point  out 
a  single  addition  made  to  them  by  Protestantism  ?  This  is  fact^  in 
opposition  to  theory.  When  Protestantism  came  it  found  several 
Republics,  and  did  not  find  one  absohUe  monarchy  in  Christendom, 
except  Russia,  which  was  not  in  communion  with  the  Pope.  They 
will  tell  you  that  the  Catholic  Religion  is  an  enemy  to  knowledge. 
But  the  fact  is,  that  if  you  remove  from  the  map  of  Christendom  all 
the  great  institutions  of  knoxvledge,  in  every  department,  founded  and 
endowed  by  Catholics  alone,  very  little  will  be  left  remaining.  They 
will  tell  you  that  the  Church  is  the  enemy  of  happiness.  But  the 
fact  is  that  nations  appear  to  have  been  much  more  happy,  if  ap¬ 
parent  contentment  be  any  symptom,  before  the  Reformation,  than 
since.  Religious  and  civil,  not  to  speak  of  general,  wars  have  fol¬ 
lowed  each  other  in  almost  constant  succession  in  most  of  the  coun¬ 
tries  of  Europe  since  that  event;  and  if  these  be  signs  of  happiness, 
I  am  much  mistaken.  They  will  tell  you  that  poverty  is  a  certain 
companion  and  consequence  of  the  Catholic  religion.  This,  even  if 
it  were  true,  amounts  to  little  ;  for  the  Divine  Author  of  Christianity 


663 


“  KIRWAN  ”  UJfMASKED. 

did  net  intend  his  religion  for  the  special  advantage  of  bankers  and 
stock-jobbers,  as  these  writers  -wouh]  lead  us  to  suppose.  And  if 
the  “  Gospel  was  preached  to  the  poor,”  it  follows  that  poverty 
would  be,  if  any  thing,  a  sign  in  favor  of  the  true  religion,  rather 
than  the  contrary.  Italy  and  Spain  may  be  called  poor  nations,  but 
yet  I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  is  allowed  in  those  Catholic  coun¬ 
tries  to  die  by  the  roadsides  of  starvation.  Protestant  England,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  a  country  oi great  wealth  and  great  'pauperism.  But 
in  England  and  Ireland,  such  writers  point  to  the  contrast  between 
the  Catholics  and  Protestants.  They  seem  to  forget,  however,  that 
by  one  thousand  and  one  different  ways,  sometimes  directly,  at  all 
times  indirectly,  the  Protestants  of  those  countries  have  been,  le¬ 
gally  till  within  less  than  twenty  years,  helping  themselves  in  the  way 
of  worldly  prosperity,  the  expense  of  the  Catholics.  Now  this  is 
the  fact,  and  no  man  of  common  information  and  candor  will  deny  it. 

I  might  go  on  indefinitely  in  pointing  out  the  mutual  contradic¬ 
tion  between  the  facts  of  history  and  the  theories  of  your  anti- 
Catholic  writers,  of  a  certain  class.  But  as  regards  Ireland  in 
particular,  not  only  were  the  laws  made  so  as  of  a  certainty  to  re 
duce  the  Catholics  to  poverty,  but  if  ignorance  is  an  impediment  to 
the  attainment  of  wealth,  the  legislature  determined  that  the  Catho¬ 
lics  should  be  poor  for  ever;  and  with  the  stigma  of  so  barbarous  an 
enactment  on  the  escutcheon  of  Protestant  Britain,  it  requires  singu¬ 
lar  power  of  face  in  such  writers  as  the  Rev.  Dr.  Murray,  of 
Elizabethtown,  to  allude  to  the  subject  at  all.  Let  me  contrast  the 
facts  of  history,  in  the  very  terms  of  the  several  statutes,  with  the 
theory  of  our  modern  instructor. 

“  If  a  Catholic  kept  school,  or  taught  any  person,  Protestant  or 
Catholic,  any  species  of  literature,  or  science,  such  teacher  was,  for 
the  crime  of  teaching,  punishable  by  law  by  banishment — and,,  if  he 
returned  from  banishment,  he  was  subject  to  be  hanged  as  a  felon. 

“If  a  Catholic,  whether  child  or  adult,  attended,  in  Ireland,  a 
school  kept  by  a  Catholic,  or  was  privately  instructed  by  a  Catholic, 
such  Catholic,  although  a  child  in  its  early  infancy,  incurred  a  for¬ 
feiture  of  all  its  jjroperty,  present  or  future. 

“  If  a  Catholic  child,  however  young,  was  sent  to  any  foreign 
country  for  education,  such  infant  child  incurred  a  similar  penalty — 
that  is,  a  forfeiture  of  all  right  to  property,  present  or  prospective. 

“  If  any  person  in  Ireland  made  any  remittance  of  money  or  goods, 
for  the  maintenance  of  any  Irish  child  educated  in  a  foreign  country, 
such  person  incurred  a  similar  forfeiture.” 

Such  were  the  laws.  “Kirwan’s”  forefathers,  in  their  day,  and 
himself  in  his  early  life,  were  their  victims.  Now,  with  these  facts 
staring  him  in  the  face,  this  man  says,  “  If  the  ignorance  of  Ireland 
has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  degradation  of  Ireland,  7  charge  that 
ignorance  on  Poperxj?’’ — page  50.  The  italics  are  his  own,  and  to 
judge  by  the  statement  one  would  be  led  to  suppose  that  he  has 
not  escaped  from  under  the  edict  against  knowledge  to  this  day. 

No,  no;  let  candid  Protestants  look  for  and  examine  the  true 


664 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


facts  in  all  these  cases;  let  them  judge  for  themselves,  and  they  will 
he  surprised  to  discover  how  much  that  is  true  has  been  held  back 
from  them  on  aU  such  subjects,  and  how  much  that  is  false,  or 
falsely  represented,  has  been  circulated  among  them  instead  of  the 
truth,  by  mere  book-writers  and  men  of  the  shop.  And  as  regards 
the  Catholic  religion,  if  they  wish  to  know  what  it  is,  even  for  the 
sake  of  information,  let  them  consult  authentic  sources,  and  be  slow 
to  receive  their  knowledge  of  it  from  those  who  are  seldom  either 
qualified  or  disposed  to  state  it  truly.  In  my  other  series  of  letters 
1  propose  to  state  it  as  it  is  understood  by  Catholics ;  to  explain  its 
doctrines,  where  explanation  is  judged  necessary;  and  to  sustain 
them  by  such  proofs  from  Scriptui-e,  history,  and  reason,  as  are  most 
likely  to  have  weight  with  men,  whether  Catholics  or  Protestants, 
who  are  not  yet  prepared  to  reduce  the  awful  mysteries  of  Christian 
revelation  to  the  infidel’s  standard  of  judgment — “  common  sense.” 

John  Hughes,  Bishop  of  New  York. 


August,  1848. 


Andrew’s  doubts, 


665 


THE  CONVERSION  AND  EDIFYING  DEATH  OF 
ANDREW  DUNN;  OR,  A  GUIDE  TO  TRUTH 

AND  PEACE. 

Prove  all  things :  hold  fest  that  which  is  good. — 1  Thes.  v.  21. 

CHAPTER  I. 

ANDREW’S  DOUBTS,  AND  CONVERSATION  WITH  HIS  MINISTER. 

Andrew  Dunn  was  born  of  poor,  but  honest  and  industrious 
parents,  by  profession  Protestants,  and  warmly  attached  to  their 
ipersuasion.  Anxious  to  instil  the  same  principles  into  the  ten¬ 
der  mind  of  their  son,  they  took  him  with  them,  as  often  as 
occasion  offered,  to  hear  sermons,  both  at  Church  and  Meeting- 
Houses,  and  carefully  taught  him  their  Catechism. 

AVishing  also  to  give  him  a  good  stock  of  learning,  they  sent  him 
to  the  day  school,  where  he  was  instructed  in  reading,  writing, 
and  accounts.  At  the  age  of  fifteen  they  took  him  away  from 
school,  and  kept  him  at  home,  to  assist  them  in  their  daily 
labours.  His  obedience  to  their  orders,  and  his  attention  to 
their  wants,  made  him  extremely  dear  to  them.  Indeed  he  was 
beloved  by  all  that  knew  him  ;  for  he  was  naturally  of  a  mild 
and  amiable  disposition.  He  was  also  a  very  good  liver ;  he 
had  a  great  hoiTor  for  cursing,  swearing,  drunkenness,  and  all 
such  vices  ;  and  seemed  indeed,  in  earnest  to  save  his  soul,  by 
loving  and  serving  God,  in  the  best  manner  he  could.  He  daily 
searched  the  scriptures  ;  he  frequently  attended  sermons  ;  and, 
he  always,  with  great  docility,  took  for  granted  that  everything 
the  Preacher  told  him  was  true.  So  exemplary  was  his  conduct, 
that  his  neighbours  looked  upon  him  as  a  saint,  and  would  often 
wish  that  they  were  like  Andrew  Dunn. 

At  the  age  of  thirty,  Andrew  began  to.  be  troubled  with  very 
great  Doubts  about  religion,  which  changed  his  former  cheerful¬ 
ness  into  dejection  and  melancholy.  His  friends  having  noticed 
this  change,  and  occasionally  observed  him  to  be  uncommonly 
serious,  'witJi  Ins  eyes  often  bathed  in  tears,  at  length  made  bold 
to  ask  the  cause  of  his  apparent  trouble.  “  Oh  !  Andrew,”  said 
they,  “  excuse  our  boldness ;  do  tell  us  the  cause  of  those  mel¬ 
ancholy  looks,  and  those  floods  of  tears  we  so  often  witness?  A 
life  like  yours,  spent  in  tlie  service  of  God,  ought  to  be  to  you  a 
source  of  joy,  as  being  a  sure  token  of  joys  that  will  never  end. 
If  the  remembrance  of  your  past  sins  causes  your  great  grief. 


666 


AECHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


have  confidence  in  the  goodness  of  God,  and  in  the  merits  of 
Jesus,  who  has  bled  and  died  for  the  expiation  of  your  sins  ;  re¬ 
member  that  ‘the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all 
sin.’  ”  1  John  i.  7. 

Andrew  after  being  long  importuned,  at  length,  made  known 
the  cause  of  his  uneasiness  and  tears.  “  I  have,”  said  he  (in  the 
greatest  anguish  of  mind) — “  I  have  endeavoured,  for  many  years 
to  avoid  sin,  and  to  serve  God;  for  I  arn  indeed  desirous,  from 
the  bottom  of  my  heart,  to  save  my  soul ;  and,  if  1  must  tell 
you  the  truth,  it  is  my  great  desire  of  salvation,  that  occasions 
all  my  tears  ;  for,  I  cannot  help  feeling,  at  times.  Doubts  and 
very  great  Apprehensions  on  that  important  subject.  For  the 
Bible  tells  me  in  Frov.  xiv.  12,  ‘that  there  is  a  way  which  seem- 
eth  right  unto  a  man,  but  tlie  ends  thereof  are  the  ways  of 
death.’  And  may  not  I  be  walking  in  that  destructive  way  ?” 

In  order  to  calm  his  fears  and  apprehensions,  his  blends  told 
him  to  continue  to  read  the  Bible,  and  fervently  to  beseech  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  teach  him,  and  to  make  him  xoise  unto  salvation. 
“The  Bible,”  they  said,  “is  the  word  of  God;  it  alone  can  con¬ 
duct  you  to  the  Truth ;  follow  what  it  teaches,  and  you  need 
not  fear  the  result.”  “  Oh,”  said  Andrew,  “  I  have  for  many 
years  practised  what  you  recommend.  I  have  read  the  Bible, 
almost  times  without  number ;  I  have  read  it  witii  a  sincere  will 
and  desire  to  be  directed  into  the  ways  of  salvation  and  truth; 
and,  with  fervent  and  tears,  I  hav'e  besought  the  Lord 

to  dispel  my  Doubts  •  but,  instead  of  decreasing,  my  Doubts 
and  perplexities  daily  increase ;  and,  that  you  may  know  that 
my  Doubts  and  alarms  are  not  imaginary  and  trifling,  but  real 
and  considerable,  I  will  now  lay  them  with  candour,  before  you. 

“  My  first  Doubt  regards  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  I  know 
indeed,  that  they  contain  the  word  of  God,  and  therefore  are 
infallibly  true,  in  what  they  teach.  But  as  the  word  of  God 
contained  in  them,  admits  of  various  interpretations,  how  am  I 
to  learn  the  true  interj^retation  ?  I  see  numbers  of  individuals, 
as  wise  and  good  as  myself,  giving  the  most  contrary  and  contra¬ 
dictory  Interpretations  to  the  same  texts  ;  I  read,  too,  in  the 
scripture  itself,  2  Pet.  iii.  16,  ‘that  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
there  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,  whicli  they  that 
are  unlearned,  and  unstable,  wrest,  as  they  do  also  the  other 
scriptures,  to  their  own  destruction.’  And,  may  not  I  be  of  that 
unhappy  number  i  I  trust,  indeed,  I  am  right,  but  I  cannot 
help  thinking  I  niay  be  wrong. 

“  My  second  Doxdjt  regards  my  religion.  I  am  a  Protestant ; 
or  at  least  so  called ;  but  if  any  one  was  to  ask  me  why  I  am  a 
Protestant,  I  could  not  tell  him,  unless  I  was  to  say,  that  my 
father  was  so  before  me  ;  and  this,  I  think,  a  very  foolish  reason. 
Yet  it  is  my  only  reason.  I  have  not  learnt  it  from  the  Bible. 
Though  I  have  read  the  Bible  ihrough  and  through,  I  have 


Andrew’s  doubts. 


667 


never  been  able  to  find  in  it,  eitlier  the  xxxix  articles  or  the 
ordinances  of  the  common  prayer-book.  Hence,  I  cannot  but 
suspect,  that  the  Protestant  religion,  is  not  the  true  religion  of 
Jesus  Christ.  And,  I  am  more  inclined  to  think  so,  from  the 
numbers  that  are  constantly  leaving  our  Clmrch,  and  going  over 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  especially  on  their  death-beds  ; 
whilst  I  never  heard  of  a  Roman  Catholic  wishing,  on  his  death¬ 
bed,  to  become  a  Protestant. 

“  A  third  reason  that  causes  me  to  suspect  that  the  Protestant 
Church  is  not  the  true  Church,  is  this ;  whenever  I  hear  a  Pro¬ 
testant  and  Catholic  disputing,  the  Catholic,  invariaddy,  appears 
to  me,  to  be  supported  by  the  strongest  arguments  from  the 
holy  scriptures ;  Avhilst  the  Protestant  seems  always  more  dis¬ 
posed  to  dispute  against  Catholics,  and  to  impute  to  them  doc¬ 
trines  which  they  do  not  believe,  to  defend  his  own  doctrines. 
And  this  I  observe  to  be  the  case,  pxirticularly  with  our  preach¬ 
ers  ;  they  seldom  speak  of  their  own  doctrines  without  misrep¬ 
resenting  the  doctrines  of  Popery,  calling  it  idolatrous,  super¬ 
stitious  and  absurd,  which,  you  know,  is  a  breach  of  the  com¬ 
mandment  of  God.  ‘  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against 
thy  neighbour.’  Exod.  11,  xx.  16.  In  witnessing  this  their 
conduct,  I  cannot  think  their  cause  to  be  a  good  one,  for,  if  it 
were,  it  would  not  require  the  aid  of  misreiiresentation  to  up¬ 
hold  it. 

“  A  fourth  cause  of  my  doubts,  is,  the  neivness  of  the  Protes¬ 
tant  Church  ;  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  you  know,  was  built 
by  the  apostles,  and  has  continued  for  eighteen  hundred  years; 
the  Protestant  Church  was  built  by  P/ixther  and  Calvin,  about 
three  hundred  years  ago.  How  then  can  the  Protestant  Church 
be  the  CJmrch  of  Christ,  having  made  its  first  appearance  fifteen 
hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Christ? 

“  A  fifth  cause  of  my  doubts,  is,  the  ninth  article  of  the  apos¬ 
tles’  creed,  in  which  I  repeat,  I  believe  in  the  holy  Catholic 
Church,  this  gires  me  much  trouble ;  and  I  can  never  repeat  it, 
in  the  presence  of  God,  without  hearing  something,  within  me, 
exclaiming  thou  liest  :  And,  indeed,  belonging,  as  I  do,  to  the 
Protestant  Church,  how  can  I  say,  with  tnitli,  1  believe  in  the 
HOLY  Catholic  Church  ?  and,  if  I  do  not,  with  truth,  believe 
in  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  how  can  I  be  saved  ?  Does  not 
the  creed  of  St.  Athanasius,  read  at  morning  prayer,  in  the  com¬ 
mon  prayer-book,  assure  us  ‘  that  whosoever  will  be  saved,  before 
all  things  it  is  necessary  that  he  hold  the  Catholic  Faith  ; 
which  faith,  except  every  one  do  keep  whole,  and  undefiled, 
without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly’?  These,  and  a 
thousand  other  Doubts  are  daily  crowding  into  my  mind,  so  that 
I  feel  very  unhappy,  hoping  I  may  be  right,  greatly  fearing  I 
may  be  icrong.  But  what  always  is  uppermost  in  my  thouglits, 
is,  the  ninth  article  of  the  apostles’  creed,  ‘  I  believe  in  thb 


668 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


HOLY  Catholic  Church  I  cannot  help  often  exclaiming  to  my¬ 
self,  M^hat !  if  our  Church  be  the  Catholic  Church,  why  don’t 
we  call  it  the  Catholic  Church  ?  why  do  we  call  it  the  Protes¬ 
tant  Church?  and  if  oxir  churchy  be  the  Church  planted  by  the 
apostles,  why  not  call  it  by  the  name  the  apostles  gave  it  in  the 
creed  ?  If  it  be  the  old  Church,  why  give  it  a  nev^  name  V” 
Andiew  expressed  his  Poubts,  with  such  a  lively  sense  of  the 
immense  importance  of  salvation,  as  to  make  a  deep  impression 
on  the  minds  of  all  jiresent.  They  acknowledged  that  his  Doubts 
were  real  and  alarming  ;  and  declared,  that  as  they  were  equal¬ 
ly  interested,  with  himself,  in  discovering  the  true  Church,  they 
would,  if  they  could  not  clear  up  those  doubts,  leave  the  Pro¬ 
testant  Church.  However,  wishing  to  act  with  the  greatest  cau¬ 
tion  in  an  affair  on  which  their  everlasting  happiness  depended, 
they  directed  Andrew  to  go  and  consult  their  Minister,  a  man 
learned,  and,  of  all  others,  as  they  thought,  most  capable  of 
solving  their  doubts.  Accordingly,  Andrew  went  to  the  Minis¬ 
ter,  Rev.  Mr. - ,  and  told  him  that  he  wished  to  have  a  little 

conversation  with  him  on  the  subject  of  Religion.  “Well, 
Andrew,”  said  he,  “  wRat  have  you  to  say  to  me  ?”  “  I  have 

been  for  some  years,”  replied  Andrew,  very  uneasy  about  my 
religion,  I  feel  many  doubts  and  perplexities,  which  make  me 
very  unhappy.  you,  Sir,  be  so  kind  as  to  satisfy  mg 

doubts  .^”  “  With  pleasure,”  said  he,  “  with  pleasure,  Andrew  ; 

what  are  they  ?”  “  Why  to  begin  with  the  greatest  of  my 

doubts,^"'  replied  Andrew,  “you  know  from  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
that  Jesus  established  a  Church,  or  society  of  true  believers 
upon  earth,  consisting  of  J^astors  and  People  ;  that  he  founded 
it  on  a  Rock,  and  promised  that  it  should  last  for  ever,  and  that 
the.  Gates  of  Hell  should  never  prevail  against  it.  Matt,  xxviii. 
20 ;  you  know  too,  that  whosoever  will  not  hear  this  Church 
shall  be  as  a  heathen.  Matt,  xviii.  11  ;  that  such  as  are  to  be 
saved,  are  daily  added  to  this  Church ;  Acts  xi.  41 ;  and  that 
this  Church  is  called  by  the  apostles,  and  distinguished  from  all 
false  Churches  by  the  name  of  ‘  Catholic  Church  knowing 
this,  pray.  Sir,  is  our  Church  the  Catholic  Church  ?  or,  if  it  be 
so,  Avhy  do  we  not  call  it  the  ‘Catholic  Church?”  “The 
reason,”  said  the  Minister,  “  why  our  Church  is  called  the  Pro¬ 
testant  Church,  is  this  :  some  hundred  years  ago  (no  one  can  tell 
when)  the  Catholic  Church,  or  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  fell 
into  various  errors  ;  yea,  according  to  the  Book  of  Homilies, 
which  is  read  in  our  Church,  it  fell  even  into  damnable  idolati'y  ; 
about  fifteen  hundred  years  after  the  establishment  of  that 
Church,  Puther  a  German,  and  Calvin  a  Frenchman,  undertook 
to  correct  those  errors,  and  reform  those  abuses  ;  and  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  this,  they  and  their  follow'ers,  in  the  year  one  thousand 
five  hundred  and  twenty-nine,  took  the  name  of  Peformers,  or 
Protesters  against  the  old  faith,  or  Protestants.  So  that  our 


AKDEEAV’S  DOUBTS.  669 

Churcb  is  the  reformed  ‘  Catholic  Church'  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  the  Roman  Catholic  Church." 

Andrew,  after  thanking  kindly  his  Minister  for  his  great  good¬ 
ness,  went  home,  oiot  quite  satisfied,  however,  with  his  answer. 
For  he  could  not  conceive  how  there  could  he  two  Catholic 
churches,  for  “  Catholic,”  said  he,  “  means  universal  or  existing 
at  all  times  and  places,  and  how  can  there  he  tu'o  such  universal 
Churches  ?  Surely  if  there  is  hut  one  universe,  there  can  he  hut 
one  universal  church.”  Besides,  he  thought,  if  the  Protestant 
Church  he  the  reformed  and  Protesting  Chnrch,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  must  have  heen  before  it ;  for  if  it  had  not  been 
before  the  Pi-otcstant  Church,  it  could  not  have  heen  reformed  ; 
and  if  it  was  before  the  Protestant  Church  (as  his  own  minister 
acknowledged)  it  must  he  the  oldest  Church  ;  and  if  the  oldest 
Church,  it  must  he  the  true  Church,  or  else  Christ  told  a  lio,  for 
when  he  established  his  Church,  about  eighteen  hundred  yeai-s 
ago,  he  declared  that  he  built  it  on  a  Rock,  and  that  the  powers 
of  Hell  or  error  should  never  prevail  against  it,  Matthew  xxviii. 
20. 

But  here  arose  a  tenfold  difficvdty ;  “  How,  said  he,  can  the 
Church  of  Rome  he  the  true  Church  of  Christ  ?  Is  not  the 
Church  of  Rome  t\\Q  Rahylon  of  the  Revelations?  Is  not  the 
the  head  of  that  Church,  Antichrist?  are  not  his  follow¬ 
ers,  Idolaters?  Do  not  our  preachers  (who  tell  us  they  deliver 
nothing  hut  the  word  of  God)  constantly  assure  us  it  is  so  ?” 

In  this  state  of  perplexity  and  doubt,  Andrew  went  home, 
almost  in  despair,  thinking  it  in  vain  to  search  any  further;  and 
hoping  that  God,  in  his  great  mercy,  would  save  him,  though  he 
was  in  the  wrong  religion,  as  he  could  find  no  better.  Whilst 
these,  and  similar  thoughts  engaged  his  whole  attention,  he  took 
up  his  Bible,  and  opened  that  passage  in  the  Acts  viii.  where  we 
read  that  Philip  was  sent  by  the  Almighty  to  instimct,  and  bap¬ 
tize  the  eunuch  of  the  queen  of  Candace,  who  was  returning 
from  Jerusalem,  sitting  in  his  chariot,  and  reading  Isaias  the 
“  Prophet.”  The  spirit  said  to  Philip,  go  near  and  join  thyself 
to  the  chariot.  And  Philip,  running  thither,  heard  him  reading 
the  prophet  Isaias,  and  he  said,  “thinkest  tliou  that  thou  under- 
standest  what  thou  rcadest?”  “And  he  said,  how  can  I,  except 
some  man  should  guide  me  ?”  Philip  then  explained  to  him  the 
meaning  of  the  scripture ;  and,  upon  his  believing,  he  baptized 
him.  “  Oh  !  ”  exclaimed  Andrew,  “  and  how  can  I  understand 
what  I  read  in  the  scripture,  except  some  man  guide  and  slioic 
me?  Oh!  where  is  Philip  to  be  found,  or  Philip’s  successors, 
the  true  pastors  of  Christ  ?  Do  thou  ”  (said  he,  casting  himself 
on  his  knees,  and  pi’aying  with  all  the  fervoift-  and  earnestness 
of  his  soul) — “  do  thou,  who  sent  Philip  to  the  eunucli,  vouchsafe 
to  send  some  minister  of  salvation  to  me.  In  tliy  tender  mercy, 
direct  me  to  the  paths  of  truth,  and  suffer  not  my  soul  for  which 


G70 


ARCHBISnOP  IltJGnES. 


thon  hast  paid  so  great  a  price,  to  perish  in  the  ways  of  error 
and  death.” 


CHAPTER  II. 

Andrew’s  conversation  with  smith. 

Andrew  had  scarcely  ended  his  prayer,  -when  John  Smith,  a 
neighhour  of  his,  and  a  very  good  liver,  but  a  Roman  Catholic, 
entered  the  house,  and  seeing  his  uneasiness,  thus  addressed  him  : 
“Well,  Andrew,  wdiy  those  tears  and  melancholy  looks?  h.as 
some  great  misfortune  befallen  you?”  “  Oh,  no,”  said  he,  “  No; 
I  am  seeking  the  Lord  ;  I  am  looking  for  the  way  to  heaven.” 
“  What  then,”  said  Smith  ;  “  are  you  not  satisfied  with  your 
present  way  ?”  “  I  am  not,”  replied  Andrew  :  “  I  am  tossed  to 

and  fro  by  every  wfind  of  doctrine;  I  am  constantly  believing 
and  disbelieving  ;  wdiat  appears  to  me  the  truth  one  day,  appears 
to  me  error  another  ;  I  asn  unsettled  and  very  vnhappy  /  know¬ 
ing  that  I  must  believe  the  true  doctrines  of  .Jesus,  or  J  cannot 
be  saved,  for  St.  Paul  (II eb.  xi.  6)  says,  ‘  that  without  faith  it  is 
impossible  to  please  God,’  and,  at  the  same  time,  not  knowing, 
for  certain,  what  those  true  doctrines  are  ;  and,  surely  to  a 
thoughtful  person,  who  values  the  joys  of  Heaven,  or  dreads  the 
torments  of  hell,  a  state  of  mind  like  mine  must  be  most  dis¬ 
tressing.  Indeed,  it  is  so  to  me ;  I  feel  very,  very  unhappy.” 

“I  can  easily  believe  you,”  said.  Smith  ;  “a  state  of  doubt, 
especially  regarding  subjects  of  so  serious  a  nature  as  those  in¬ 
volving  the  joys  of  Heaven,  and  the  torments  of  Hell,  must  be 
truly  distressing.  Have  you  been  long  troubled  with  those 
doubts  ?”  “  Many  years,”  answered  Andrew  'with  a  sigh  ; 

“  many  years  ;  but  much  more  so  'within  these  last  few  months  ; 
so  that,  of  late,  I  have  had  literally  no  rest.”  “  Have  you  never 
opened  your  mind  to  your  friends  on  those  subjects  ?”  asked 
Smith  ;  “  have  you  never  consulted  your  Minister,  and  asked  his 
advice?”  “Frequently,”  replied  Andre'w  ;  “but  'without  any 
reed  satisfaction.  Instead  of  solving  my  doubts,  both  my  friends 
and  the  Minister  evaded  my  difficulties,  and  referred  me  to  the 
liihle  as  the  sure  and  only  means  of  calming  my  mind,  and  re¬ 
moving  my  doubts.  But  I  can  assure  you.  Smith,  that  the  Bible 
has  not  yet  removed  any  of  my  doulits;  and  I  feel  no’w  perfectly 
persuaded  it  never  will.  For,  I  can  never  be  certain,  that  I  un¬ 
derstand  it  right.”  “True,”  re})lied  Smith,  “the  Bible  alone 
cannot  clear  up  your  doubts ;  it  cannot  answer  your  questions, 
nor  explain  its  difficult  texts  to  you,  nor  tell  you  when  you  inter¬ 
pret  them  right,  *ind  when  'wrong.  There  must  be,  of  course, 
some  living  authority  to  perform  those  kind  offices  for  you,  or 
else  your  doubts  must  for  ever  remain.  And  is  there  any  such 
living  (uithority  by  Jesus  to  explain  his  la'w^tous? 


Andrew's  conversation  with  smith.  67l 

yes;  the  Bible  itself  tells  us  so.  St.  Paul  (Eph.  iv.  11, 14)  says, 
that  Christ  has  appointed  Pastors  and  Teachers  in  his  Church  to 
guide  and  direct  us,  ‘  that  we  may  not  be  children  tossed  to  and 
fro,  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine.’  Jesus  also 
says  (St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20)  that  he  sent  Pastors  to  teach  all 
nations,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  And  in  St.  Luke  x. 
16,  he  commands  us  to  hear  them,  even  as  we  should  hear  him¬ 
self;  assuring  us,  in  St.  John,  that  our  obedience  or  disobedi¬ 
ence  to  them  is  a  certain  mark,  by  which  we  may  know  whether 
we  belong  to  God  or  not;  ‘  he  that  kuowetli  God,’  says  St.  John, 
‘  heareth  us.  He  that  is  not  of  God,  heareth  us  not.  Hereby 
know  we  the  spirit  of  truth,  and  the  spirit  of  error.’  ”  (1  John 

iv.  6.)  “  Ah,”  said  Andrew,  “  I  have  often  read,  and  studied 

these  texts.  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  they  point  out  to  us  the 
pastors  of  the  Church  as  our  guides  and  teachers,  from  whom  we 
are  to  receive  our  faith.  And  under  this  conviction,  often  have. 
I  gone  to  hear  and  consult  our  parsons,  but  they,  as  often,  have 
sent  me  back  to  read  and  consult  the  Bible.  ‘  We,’ they  said, 
‘  are  but  fallible  men  ;  we  may  err  and  lead  you  astray — follow 
no  man’s  o})inion  ;  read  and  Ibllow  the  Bihle  alone  •  the  Pible 
alone  is  the  religion  of  Protestants?  Well,  following  their  di¬ 
rection,  I  again  read  the  Bible,  and  again  doubted.  Opening 
that  sacred  book,  I  read  (Heb.  xiii.  7,  17),  ‘  Hemember  them  which 
have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken  to  you  the  word  of 
God  ;  whose  faith  follow;’ — and  ‘  obey  them  that  have  the  rule 
over  you,  and  sulnnit  yourselves,  for  they^  watch  for  your  souls 
as  they  that  must  give  account.’  Again,  turning  over  a  few 
leaves,  I  found  in  !St.  Mat.  xviii.  17,  these  alarming  words,  ‘If 
he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church  (that  is,  the  Pastors  of  the  Church), 
let  him  be  to  thee  as  the  heathen  and  the  publican.’  In  these 
texts,  said  I,  Jesus  and  his  apostles  do  not  tell  me  to  look  upon 
the  Bible  as  my  rule  ;  they  evidently  send  me  to  the  Pastors  of 
the  Church,  and  command  me  to  obey  them,  and  to  follow  their 
faith.  Thus  I  observed  that  our  Preachers  sent  me  to  the  Bible, 
and  the  Bible  sent  me  to  the  Pastors  of  the  Church.  Surely, 
said  I,  this  is  a  strange  method  of  instruction  :  either  our  preach¬ 
ers  or  the  Bible  must  be  wrong  ;  now  I  knew  for  certain  that  the 
Bible  could  not  be  wrong  ;  it  is  the  infallible  truth  of  God  ; 
therefore,  said  I,  our  Preachers  must  be  wrong ;  and  if  our 
P'eachers  be  wrong,  they  cannot  be  the  Pastors  commissioned 
by  Christ  to  teach  us  the  way  to  heaven  ;  and  if  they  be  not  the 
true  Pastors  commissioned  to  teach  us,  there  must  be  other  Pas¬ 
tors  of  some  other  Church,  to  whom  the  Bible  sends  us.” 

Smith  having  paid  great  attention  to  Andrew’s  remarks,  said, 
“  I  ant  much  pleased  to  hear  your  good  reasoning  ;  yes,  Andrew, 
if  your  Preachers  send  you  to  the  Bible,  as  to  your  only  rule  to 
conduct  you,  and  to  teach  you  the  truths  of  eternity,  they  as 
much  as  tell  you,  that  they  are  not  appointed  by  the  Lord  to  be 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES 


C^72 

your  guides ;  and  consequently,  that  they  are  not  the  Prelates 
wlioni  the  Bible  commands  you  to  obey.”  “  So  I  begin  to  sus¬ 
pect,”  said  Andrew ;  “  but  where  are  these  tr\ie  Prelates  and 
Teachers  to  be  found  ?”  “  Sliall  I  tell  you  ?”  said  Smith.  “  Ah  ! 

I  wish  you  could  tell,”  replied  Andrew,  “  for  your  own  sake  as 
well  as  mine.”  And  here  Andrew  could  not  help  feeling  a  great 
contempt  for  Smith,  who,  as  a  Roman  Catholic,  he  judged  to 
know  nothing  at  all  about  the  Bible,  and  the  truths  of  religion. 
“  Poor  Idolater,”  said  he,  within  himself,  “  adoring  wooden  gods 
and  saints,  you  teach  me,  a  Protestant,  who  know  the  Bible  at 
my  lingers’  ends,  where  I  am  to  find  the  true  pastors  of  the 
Church?”  “Shall  I  tell  you,”  said  Smith  again.  “Well! 
come,”  replied  AndrcAV,  “  say  what  yon  think.”  “  The  Pastors 
of  the  Church,”  said  Smith,  “  Auhom  we  are  commanded  by  the 
Bible  to  hear,  are  the  Pastors  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  laAv'- 
ful  successors  of  the  Apostles.  If  you  will  hear  them  and  follow 
their  faith,  your  doubts  and  perplexities  will  soon  vanish  ;  and 
you  will  experience  that  inward  peace  and  content  of  mind  of 
which  you  haAm  been  so  long  in  search.” 

Here  AndreAAq  AAUth  Avarmth,  S^iid,  “  What !  do  you  mean  the 
Pastors  of  the  Church  of  Borne  ?  of  that  Church  Avhich  has 
Antichrist  for  its  head,  and  Avhose  members  are  Idolaters 
“  Oh  !  Andrew,”  exclaimed  Smith,  “do  keep  your  temper;  shew 
yourself  to  be  a  Christian,  by  expressions  of  charity ;  and  do 
not  thus  slander  and  calumniate  your  Christian  brethren.  Was 
the  Church  of  Rome  such  as  you  represent  it  to  be,  I  Avould  hate 
it  as  much  as  you  do  ;  I  would  fly  from  it  with  horror,  and,  Avith 
earnestness,  exhort  all  others  to  folloAA^  my  example.  But  beheAm 
me,  Andrew,  it  is  no  such  thing  ;  the  Catholic  Church,  as  you 
will  find  upon  inquiry,  is  quite  the  reverse  of  what  you  have 
been  taught  to  consider  it  to  be.”  “  Well,  come  then,”  said 
Andrew,  “  I  will  not  interrupt  you  any  more,  at  least  not  Avith 
uncharitable  expressions  ;  I  Avill  Avith  attention  hear  what  you 
have  to  say ;  and,  Avhat  is  more,  I  will  promise,  if  you  can  proA’e 
to  me  that  the  Pastors  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  the 
true  Pastors  of  Christ,  and  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  I 
Avill  promise  to  hear  them,  and  to  folloAV  their  faith ;  and,  in 
spite  of  all  the  Avorld  may  say  against  it,  I  Avill  become  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  that  Church.”  “  And  I  Avill  promise,”  said  Smith,  “  on 
my  part,  that  if  I  cannot  prove  it,  I  Avill  no  longer  profess  my¬ 
self  a  Catholic.”  “Well,”  replied  Andrew,  “  that  is  fair.” 

“  In  order  to  beg  the  help  of  Him,  who  alone  can  enlighten 
them  that  sit  in  darkness  and  in  the  shadoAV  of  death,  let  us,” 
said  Smith,  “  Avith  all  humility  and  fervour,  pray  :  O,  Lord,  do 
thou  who  hast  sent  thine  only  son  Jesus  to  teach  us  th^  truths 
of  eternity  ;  Avho  hast  commanded  ns  to  believe  those  truths, 
under  pain  of  eternal  miserj'^ ;  Avho  hast  said,  Mark  xvi.  16,  ‘he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,’  do  thou,  in  thy  great  mer- 


smith’s  proofs. 


673 


cy,  diroet  us  to  the  true  faith,  and  conduct  us,  we  beseech  thee, 
to  that  Cliurch,  to  whicli  thou  daily  callest  such  as  shall  be 
saved.” 


CHAPTER  III. 

smith’s  proofs  in  favour  op  the  catholic  church. 

“  Before  T  proceed,”  said  Smith,  “to  prove  that  the  Pastors 
of  the  Catholic  Church  are  the  true  Pastors  and  Ministers  of 
Christ,  I  will  suppose,  in  the  first  place,  Andrew,  that  you  be¬ 
lieve  the  BihU  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  infallibly  true,  in 
what  it  teaches.”  “  I  do  believe  it  to  be  the  word  of  God,”  re¬ 
plied  Andrew. 

.  “  In  the  second  place,  you  allow  that  in  the  Bible,  there  are 
many  things  difficult  to  be  understood,  which  are  bj^  many  per- 
Terted  to  their  own  destruction.”  “  Yes,”  answered  Andrew, 
“I  have  found  it  by  my  own  experience,  and  St.  Peter  also  says 
so,  2  Pet.  iii.  16.” 

“  In  the  third  place  you  agree  with  me,  I  think,  that  the  Bible 
rtlone^  cannot  be  the  rule  left  us  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  guide  us  to 
the  truth,  since  many,  there  are,  according  to  St.  Peter,  who,  by 
interpreting  it  wrong,  are  led  into  error  and  destruction. 

“  It  cannot  evidently  be  a  rule  to  those  who  have  not  learnt 
to  read,  of  which  there  are  thousands  upon  thousands  in  the 
world.  Of  course,  to  these  it  can  be  no  rule  at  all ;  for  they 
cannot  make  the  least  use  of  it. 

“  It  cannot  even  be  a  rule  to  those  who  can  read,  for  even 
those,  when  they  interpret  by  their  own  private  judgment,  can 
never  agree  about  the  sense  of  it ;  they  often  give  the  most  con¬ 
trary  and  contradictory  interpretations  to  the  same  texts  ;  and 
often  alter  their  opinion  about  the  sense  they  put  upon  them : 
what  they  believe  to  be  the  true  sense  to-day,  they  reject  as 
false  tomorrow;  and  are  continually  carried  about  with  every 
wind  of  doctrine.  Is  not  this  true,  Andrew  ?”  “  It  is  true,” 

answered  Andrew  ;  “  the  Bible  alone,  evidently  then,  cannot  be 
a  sulliclent  rule  to  teach  us  Christianity.  And,  indeed,  though 
Protestants  used  to  think  it  sufficient,  they  seem  at  the  present 
day  to  have  changed  their  opinions.  Hence  they  now  have  their 
Notes,  and  Catechisms,  and  Creeds,  and  Articles,  and  Ministers, 
in  order  to  teach  their  people  the  supposed  meaning  of  the 
Bible,  and  to  instruct  them  in  the  particular  doctrines  of  their 
sects.  So  that  Protestants  do  not  now  learn  their  doctrines  so 
much  from  the  Bible  as  from  their  Ca^techism  Preachers?’’  “  I 
am  very  glad,”  said  Smith,  “  that  you  and  your  Protestant 
friends,  at  least  many  of  them,  agree  with  us  Catholics,  that  the 
Bible  alone  Ls  not  a  sufficient  rule  ;  but  that  Ministers  and  Pas¬ 
tors  ai’e  necessary  to  explain  to  us  the  sense  of  it,  in  the  same 


G74 


AIlCIIBISnOP  HUGHES. 


manner  as  judges  and  lawyers  are  necessary  to  explain  the  laws 
of  our  country  to  us.  Yes,  AndreAv;  there  must  assuredly  be 
Pastors  some  where  or  other,  who  are  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles^  and  have  a  commission  to  jireach,  and  teacli,  and  ad¬ 
minister  the  Sacraments.  Now,  the  only  difficulty  is  to  ascer¬ 
tain  who  are  these  Pastors^  the  successors  of  the  Apostles. 

“  The  best,  and  indeed  the  only  way,  to  know  them,  and  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  true  Pastors  from/h^se  ones,  is  to  examine  their  crec/en- 
tials ;  if  they  can  produce  a  cOM]Missioisr  delivered  to  them  by 
the  Apostles.,  or  by  lawful  successors  of  the  Apostles,  ive  may 
rest  assured  that  they  are  true  Pastors,  the  same  that  Jesus 
commands  us  to  hear,  even  as  himself.  (Luke  x.  IG.)  If  they 
can  produce  no  such  commission,  we  must  beware  of  them,  and 
reject  them  as  It  is  the  command  of  Jesus,  ‘beware 

of  false  prophets,’  says  he,  ‘  who  come  to  you  in  sheep’s  clothing, 
but  inwardly  they  are  ravening  wmlves.’  Matt.  vii.  15. 

“Indeed,  this  commission  is  so  very  necessary,  that  without  it 
no  man  can  preach.  ‘  How  shall  they  preach,’  says  St.  Paul, 
‘  except  they  be  sent  ?’  (Rom.  x.  15.)  Again,  ‘  every  high  priest 
taken  from  among  men  is  ordained  for  men  in  the  things  that 
appertain  to  God,  tliat  he  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for 
sins.’  And  ‘  no  man  taketh  this  honour  unto  himself,  but  he 
that  is  called  of  God,  as  M'as  Aaron  (Heb.  v.  1,  4);  and  Jesus 
himself  s.ays,  ‘  lie  that  entereth  not  by  the  door  into  the  sheep- 
fold,  but  climbeth  up  some  other  way,  the  same  is  a  thief  and  a 
robber.’  (John  x.  1.)  So  true  it  is  that  a  coximission  is  neces¬ 
sary  in  order  to  preach,  that  Jesus  himself  would  not  preach  till 
he  had  received  one  from  his  eternal  Father:  ‘  If  [  bear  witness 
of  myself,’  said  he,  ‘  my  witness  is  not  true.  There  is  another  that 
beareth  witness  of  me  ;  and  I  know  that  the  witness  which  he 
witnesseth  of  me  is  true.’  (John  v.  31,  3‘2.)  Again,  he  said,  ‘I 
am  not  come  of  myself  ;  he  (God)  hath  sent  me.’  (John  vii.  28, 
and  Luke  iv.  18.)  Jesus  having  received  this  commission  from 
his  eternal  Father,  communicated  the  same  to  his  Apostles.  ‘As 
my  Father,’  said  lie,  ‘hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you’  (John 
XX.  21);  ‘go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations — teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,  and  lo 
I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.’  (^latt. 
xxviii.  19,  20.)  This  commission  the  Apostles  communicated 
again  to  others  ;  thus  they  sent  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  preach 
at  Seleucia.  (Acts  xiii.  3.)  St.  Paul  sent  Titus  ;  the  other 
tles  ordained  and  sent  Bishops  and  Beacons  to  other  places ; 
these  Bishops  sent  others  ;  those  again  sent  others  ;  and  so  on, 
by  an  uninterrupted  succession,  in  every  age  down  to  the  pre¬ 
sent.  So  there  must  be  at  present,  and  will  always  be,  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  Bishops  and  Pastors,  who  possess  the  same 
COMMISSION  and  power  which  Jesus  gave  to  his  Apyostles,  and 
whom  we  are  equally  bound  in  conscience  to  hear.  And  that 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  NATIONS. 


675 


SHcli  are  the  Pastors  of  the  Catholic  Churchy  it  is  the  easiest  of 
easy  things  to  prove.  Indeed,  there  are  few,  or  none,  bold 
enough  to  deny  it.  We  have  as  strong  proofs  that  the  loresent 
Pa.stor8  of  the  Catholic  Chureli  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles^ 
as  that  Geo.  lY.  is  the  successor  of  Geo.  I.  They  can  all  show 
you  their  commissions  derived  from  the  Apostles. 

“  Ask  the  first  Catholic  Priest  you  meet,  M’hat  aitthokity  he 
has  to  preacli,  and  to  administer  the  sacraments.  He  Avill  prove 
to  you  that  he  ivas  ordained,  and  qualified  to  offer  sacrifice,  and 
to  perform  the  other  duties  of  a  Minister  of  Jesus,  by  such  a 
Catholic  Bishop,  that  Bishop  was  consecrated  by  such  another 
Catholic  Bishop,  and  so  on,  in  a  long  chain,  which  reaches  up  to 
the  Apostles  themselves.  He  will  prove  to  you  also,  that  he 
was  sent  to  preach  the  Gospel,  by  such  a  Catholic  Bishop,  who 
received  authority  for  that  purpose  from  the  present  Pope,  who 
is  the  lawful  successor  of  St.  Peter,  in  the  Apostolic  see  of  Rome; 
whose  successors  in  number  amount  to  tMm  hundred  and  fifty- 
five,  following  one  another  in  regular  order,  during  the  space  of 
nearly  eighteen  hundred  yeai’s.  And,  to  show  that  wdiat  I  say 
is  quite  time,  I  will  here  set  down  the  names  of  all  the  Popes, 
ami  the  order  of  their  succession,  beginning  with  St.  Peter,  the 
first  Popte  of  Rome,  and  ending  with  I^jCO  XII.,  the  present  Pope.''"' 

Here  Smith  enumerated  the  Bishops  of  Rome  in  each  century 
according  to  the  order  of  succession,  and  concluded  ;• — Thus,  you 
see,  Andreiv,  that  we  have  in  the  Catholic  Church,  a  regular  suc¬ 
cession  of  Pastors,  wdiich  is  brought  down  from  St.  Peter,  the 
first  Pope,  to  Leo  XH.,  the  present  Pope.  Whilst  the  reformed 
churches,  so  called,  can  trace  the  succession  of  their  ministers  no 
farther  than  Martin  Luther,  the  Germany  who  lived  about  three 
hundred  years  ago.  Our  Pastors  are  the  heirs  of  the  Apostles, 
lawfully  sent,  and  commissioned  to  preach,  and  offer  sacrifice. 
Their  ministers  are  only  heirs  of  Luther  the  German,  or  Calvin 
the  Frenchman. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CONVERSION  OP  NATIONS. 

And  to  show  you  still  clearer,  that  our  Pastors  are  the  true 
Ministers  of  Jesus,  I  will  now  prove  to  you,  that,  in  them  alone, 
have  been  verified  the  promises  of  Christ,  of  teaching  all  Natioiis, 
They  are  the  individuals  who  have,  in  each  age,  by  their  pious 
labours,  aided  by  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  conducted  infidel  Na¬ 
tions  into  the  sacred  fold. 

In  the  first  age  of  Christianity,  the  labours  of  the  Apostles 
and  Disciples,  especially  of  Saint  Peter,  and  Saint  Paul,  the 
founders  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  Avere  blessed  with  incredible 
success. 


676 


ARCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


In  the  second  age,  great  conversions  were  wrought  in  Africa^ 
Gaul,  and  Britain,  by  Missionaries  sent  from  Borne. 

In  the  third  age,  the  Goths,  and  other  barbaroiis  Nations  were 
converted. 

In  the  fourth  age,  the  Ethiopians  and  Iherians  received  tlie 
faith. 

In  the  fifth  age.  Saint  Palladius,  being  sent  from  Borne,  by 
Pope  Celestm,  about  the  year  430,  converted  the  Scots  to  tlie 
faith  of  Christ.  In  the  same  age  Saint  Batrich,  who  was  sent 
by  the  same  Pope,  converted  all  Ireland.  He  was  famous  for 
sanctity  and  miracles,  having  even  raised  the  dead  to  life. 

In  the  sixth  age.  Saint  Axujustine  or  Austin  the  IMonk,  was 
sent  by  Saint  Gregory  the  Great,  the  Pope  of  Pome,  to  Eng¬ 
land;  and  by  preaching  and  miracles  converted  King  Ethelbert 
with  his  people  to  the  faith  of  Christ. 

In  the  seventh  age.  Saint  Willibrord,  sent  by  Popxe  Sergius, 
converted  the  Netherlands. 

In  the  eighth  age.  Saint  Boniface,  an  Englishman,  esteemed 
the  Apostle  of  Germany,  was  sent  Pope  Gregory  the  second, 
and  converted  Hesse,  Thuringia,  Westphalia,  and  Saxony. 

In  the  ninth  age,  Saint  Axisgarias,  first  Archbishop  of  Ilam.- 
borough  and  Bremen,  carried  the  liglit  of  the  Gospel  into  Swe¬ 
den. 

In  the  tenth  age,  the  Danes  were  converted  by  St.  Goppio, 
first  Bishop  of  Ax'thusia. 

In  the  eleventh  age,  the  Hungarians  were  converted  under 
their  King  Saint  Stephen. 

In  the  twelfth  age  I^evoxim  received  the  faith  of  Christ  by  the 
preaching  of  Saint  Meinardus. 

In  the  thirteenth  age  many  Tartars  were  converted  by  Mis¬ 
sionaries  sent  by  Pope  Innocent  IV. 

In  the  fourteenth  age,  Bithuania  was  brought  over  to  the 
Christian  Faith. 

In  the  fifteenth  age,  Portuguese  Missionaries  preached  the 
Gospel,  with  great  success,  in  Goxxgo  and  Axxgola. 

And  here  I  must  remark,  that  these  xnissionaries  were  all  of 
them  Catholics,  sent  by  the  Pojxe  of  Borne,  and  taught  the  same 
doctrines,  wdiich  we  Catholics  teach  at  the  present  day.  Till 
this  time  there  were  no  Protestants,  nor  Calvinists,  nor  Method¬ 
ists,  all  were  of  one  mind,  forming  one  fold  under  one  Shepherd. 
It  was  in  the  sixteenth  age,  that  Eutlier  and  Calvin  separated 
themselves  from  the  Church,  and  drew  after  them  many  of  the 
faithful.  But  this  loss,  A\diich  the  Catholic  Church  sustained  by 
the  defection  of  many  of  her  members,  assuming  to  themselves 
the  names  of  Beformers  and  Protestants,  was  abundantly  repair¬ 
ed  by  the  conversion  of  Millions  of  others. 

Thus,  in  the  sixteenth  age.  Saint  Francis  Xavier,  sent  by  Pope 
Paul  III.,  carried  the  light  of  the  Gospel  to  the  East  Indies,  to 


THE  CONVERSION  OP  NATIONS. 


677 


Malahar,  Travancor,  the  Fishery,  Moluccas,  Delmoro,  and  Japan, 
converting  by  his  great  miracles,  many  hundred  thousands  of 
these  Barbarians  to  Christ.  (See  his  life  written  by  Mr.  Dryden.) 

In  the  seventeenth  age,  Saint  Lewis  Bertrand,  eminent  for 
sanctity  and  miracles,  preached  the  faith  to  several  provinces  of 
Peru  in  South  America,  and  converted  an  innumerable  multi¬ 
tude  of  Barbarians.  His  labors  have  been  seconded  by  those 
of  others  ;  so  that  at  the  present  day  the  inhabitants  of  Terra 
Firma,  Neio  Grenada,  Few  Andalusia,  Papayan,  Peru,  and 
Brazil,  and  3Iexico,  are  almost  all  Catholics,  in  communion  with 
the  See  of  Home. 

In  the  eigliteenth  age,  most  remarkable  conversions  were 
made  in  Canada,  and  California,  in  North  America,  and  in 
China,  and  other  parts. 

In  the  present,  or  nineteenth  age,  missionaries  are  making 
great  progress  in  divers  parts  of  Asia.  In  the  Empire  of  China 
there  are  at  present  six  Catholic  Bishops,  and  some  hundreds  of 
Catholic  Priests,  wdio,  in  spite  of  the  jiersecution.  of  the  ^nfidels, 
and  at  the  risk  of  their  lives  (many  of  whom  have  been  martyred 
for  the  faith)  have  converted,  and  continue  to  convert  thousands 
upon  thousands  to  the  Catholic  Faith. 

The  Catholic  Missionaries  are  equally  successful  too,  in  North 
America.  Several  of  the  Chiefs  of  the  Indian  Tribes  have  sent 
petitions  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  send  them 
more  Catholic  Missionaries.  So  that  in  these  our  days,  we  see 
that  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Rom.  x.  18,  evidently  verified  in  our 
Missionaries,  Their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  and  their 
words  went  unto  the  end  of  the  world.”  And  ver.  15,  “How 
beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them  that  preach  the  Gospel  of  peace, 
and  bring  glad  tidings  of  good  things.”  Now,  can  any  one  be 
so  blind  and  unreasonable  as  to  charge  that  Church  with  idola¬ 
try  and  superstition,  which,  by  her  Pastors,  has  everywhere 
planted  the  Cross  of  Jesus  upon  the  ruins  of  idolatry  f 

Here  Andrew,  in  astonishment,  could  not  help  exclaiming, 
“  What !  have  Catholic  Pastors  alone  converted  all  nations  f 
Have  not  Protestant  and  3Iethodist  Preachers  too  converted  na¬ 
tions  to  Christianity?”  “No,  Andrew,”  replied  Smith,  “no; 
they  have  never  converted  one  single  infidel  nation,  though 
they  have  spared  neither  money  nor  good  will  to  do  so.  The 
most  they  can  eftect  is,  to  cause  Christians  to  pass  from  one  sect 
to  another.  You  may  perhaps  know,  that  there  are  at  present, 
in  England,  eight  3Iissionary  Societies  for  foreign  parts.  There 
are,  too,  a  countless  number  of  Bible  Societies,  which  receive 
from  the  good-natured  and  well-disposed  people  of  England  and 
America,  thousands  upon  thousands  of  pounds  and  dollars  annu¬ 
ally,  in  aid  of  the  conversion  of  infidels  ;  yet  notwithstanding  all 
this,  what  has  been  the  fruit  of  all  their  labors  ?  what  their  success  ? 
Have  they  converted  any  one  infidel  nation?  or  any  considera- 


678 


AKCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


Me  part  of  any  such  nation  to  Christianity  ?  No,  Andrew,  no  ; 
and  I  think  I  may  say,  without  pretending  to  any  great  share  of 
prophetic  knowledge,  that  they  never  will.  The  conversion  of 
nations  is  a  grace  reserved  for  the  Catholic  Church  alone.  And 
as  a  further  proof  of  what  I  say,  I  will  observe,  that  even  in 
Bengal,  where  there  are  nearly  forty  millions  of  people  subject 
to  England,  the  Protestant  missionaries  make  very  few  converts. 
C.  JNlarsh,  Esq.,  in  a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  (where 
he  would  not  have  ventured  to  assert  a  falsehood)  declared  that 
the  Protestant  missionaries  had  not  made  more  than  eighty  con¬ 
verts  in  secen  years,  and  those  almost  all  outcasts  from  the  Hin¬ 
doo  religion.  Ah  !  Andrew,  whose  labors  appear  to  be  the 
most  blessed  by  Heaven  ?  But  it  is  time  to  finish  ;  I  have 
proved,  that  the  Pastors  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  the  legiti¬ 
mate  successors  of  the  Apostles  of  Jesus,  forming  a  long,  imin- 
terrupted  chain  of  Pastors  from  the  Apostles  to  the  present  day  ; 
and  that,  according  to  the  command  of  Jesus,  they  have  taught 
all  nations ;  consequently,  they  are  the  guides  and  landmarks 
set  up  by  him,  to  direct  us  safe  into  the  haven  of  salvation.  To 
them  we  are  directed  by  the  wise  man,  who  says,  ‘  Remove  not 
the  ancient  landmark  which  thy  fathers  have  set  ’  (Prov.  xxii. 
28).  And  Jeremiah  says,  ‘  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Stand  ye  in  the 
ways,  and  see,  and  ask  for  the  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way, 
and  walk  therein,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  for  your  souls.’  Jer.  vi. 
16.  Again,  ‘Remember  the  days  of  old,  consider  the  years  of 
many  generations ;  ask  thy  father,  and  he  will  show  thee,  thy 
elders,  and  they  will  tell  thee.’  Deut.  xxxii.  Y.  In  these  texts, 
the  Almighty  directs  you  not  to  a  new,  modern,  reformed 
Church  /  not  to  a  Church  that  is  but  one,  two,  or  three  hundred 
years  old,  but  he  directs  you  clearly,  to  the  old  Church  which 
was  built  by  Jesus,  on  a  rock,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  years 
ago  ;  and  which,  according  to  his  promise  (Matt,  xxviii.  19), 
shall  stand, immovable,  and  unchanged,  till  the  end  of  time, 
w'hilst  he  frequently  warns  you  to  avoid  all  novelties  in  matters 
of  faith  and  religion.  Every  new  and  modern  religion  is  con¬ 
demned  by  St.  Paul,  as  accursed  before  God.  ‘Though  Ave,’ 
says  he,  ‘or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  gospel  unto 
you  than  that  Avhich^we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  ac¬ 
cursed.’  Gal.  i.  8.  Here  the  Apostle  pronounces  a  curse  xipon 
all  tliose  who  preach  a  new  doctrine  or  a  neio  religion  contrary  to 
that  Avhich  we  have  received  from  the  Apostles,  however  good  it 
may  seem  to  men  ;  yes,  even  though  an  angel  from  heaven 
should  teach  it. 

“  Now,  which  is  the  new  religion  ?  The  Catholic  or  the  Protes¬ 
tant?  Why,  clearly,  the  Protestant  religion  is  the  new  one.  It 
came  into  the  world  in  the  days  of  Tmither,  about  three  hundred 
years  ago,  that  is,  fifteen  hundred  years  after  Christ,  and,  of 
course,  fifteen  hundred  years  too  late  to  be  the  religion  of  Christ. 


THE  CONVERSION  OP  NATIONS. 


679 


And  which  is  the  old  religion  ?  Why,  and  with  the  greatest 
certainty  [  say  it,  the  Catholic  religion  is  the  old  religion.  It  is 
the  old  religion  of  England ;  the  very  walls  of  their  ancient 
churches  and  cathedrals  witness  it,  they  were  all  built  by  (Jath- 
olics.  Those  venerable  remains  of  crosses  which  are  met  with  on 
the  public  roads,  witness  it  also;  they  were  all  raised  by  Catho¬ 
lics.  It  is,  too,  the  old  religion  of  Christendom;  all  kind  of  mon¬ 
uments  attest  it:  even  those,  Avhose  interest  it  is  to  deny  it,  are 
obliged  to  owii  it.  Now,  if  it  be  the  oldest.,  Andrew,  the  conse¬ 
quence  is  evident ;  therefore,  it  is  the  true  religion.  But  you  are 
tired,  Andrew,  I  will  now — ” 

“No;  no,”  exclaimed  Andrew,  “I  am  not  tired;  I  wish  you 
to  continue ;  I  could  hear  you  all  night :  for  what  you  say  gives 
great  ease  to  my  mind.” 

“  AVell,  then,”  resumed  Smith,  “  I  will  detain  you  a  few  minutes 
longer. 

“There  is  another  proof  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  Church  at 
which  you  just  now  hinted;  I  mean  its  being  called  the  Catho¬ 
lic  Church.  The  true  Church,  you  know,  is  called  by  the  Apos¬ 
tles,  in  the  Creed,  the  Catholic  Church.  Of  course,  whatever 
church  has  not  this  name,  is  not  the  true  Church.  In  order  to 
find  out  the  true  Church,  then,  you  need  but  to  search  for  that 
Church  which  is  called  Catholic.  And  what  Church  is  called 
Catholic  ?  Why,  oiirs,  Andrew,  ours  alone  ;  even  those  who 
oppose  us,  call  us  Catholics.  They  call  us  Catholics  in  their 
writings,  in  their  laws,  and  in  their  conversations.  All  call  us 
Catholics,  except  a  few  bigoted  preachers  and  ignorant  persons, 
of  the  lowest  order  of  society,  who  have  been  taught  by  ignorant 
parents  or  ill-natured  tract-mongers  to  misname  us  Romans  and 
Papists.  All  the  world  besides  call  us  Catholics.” 

“  Well,  Smith,”  exclaimed  Andrew,  “you  quite  surprise  me; 
the  proofs  you  produce  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  Church  are 
very  strong  indeed ;  I  can  assure  you,  I  never  ex})ected  to  hear 
so  much  from  you  or  from  any  other  Catholic  ;  I  begin  to  thijik 
that  you  Catholics  are  not  so  ignorant  about  religion  as  our 
preachers  would  fain  persuade  us.” 

“  These,”  said  Smith,  “  are  but  a  few  of  the  arguments  which 
attach  us  Catholics  to  the  faith  of  our  ancestors ;  it  would  take 
me  too  long  to  mention  them  all.  If  you  wish  to  obtain  the  best 
information,  I  would  recommend  you  to  speak  to  one  of  our 
Priests  •  you  will  find  them  to  be  very  different  characters  from 
what  tract-mongers  generally  fepresent  them  to  be.  They  will 
receive  you  with  great  kindness  and  affection  ;  they  will  take  a 
pleasure  in  answering  your  questions,  and  directing  you  in  your 
search  after  truth;  and,  I  think  I  may  venture  to  say,  they  will 
satisfy  all  reasonable  doubts.'"’ 

“  But,  I  sliould  wish,”  said  Andrew,  “  to  hear  a  little  more 
from  you,  before  I  go  to  the  Pi'iest.” 


680 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


“  Well,  tlien,”  resumed  Smith,  “  another  motive  for  being  a 
Catholic  is  this ;  the  Catholic  religion  is  the  safest  to  die  in  ; 
and,  as  a  proof  that  it  is  the  safest  religion  to  die  in,  I  can  otfer 
nothing  more  convincing  than  the  sentiments  and  conduct  of  per¬ 
sons  on  their  death-beds,  when  they  must  be  supposed  to  be  sin¬ 
cere.  Now,  it  is  a  certain  fact,  that  thousands  upon  thousands 
of  Protestants,  on  their  death-beds,  call  for  the  assistance  of 
Catholic  Priests,  and  embrace  the  Catholic  Faith;  whilst  it  is 
equally  certain  that  no  Catholic,  that  is,  no  person  who  had  lived 
all  his  lifetime  a  Catholic,  was  ever  known  to  wish  to  die  a  Pro¬ 
testant;  therefore,  Andrew,  1  think  this  conclusion  clear:  the 
Catholic  religion  is  the  safest  and  best. 

“  Again,  whilst  we  see  thousands  of  Protestants  daily  becom¬ 
ing  Catholics,  though  by  doing  so  they  are  exposed  to  the  ridi¬ 
cule  and  persecutions  of  the  ungodly  ;  yet  we  seldom  see  or  hear 
of  any  Catholic  becoming  Protestant,  unless  with  a  view  to  live 
a  more  unrestrained  and  licentious  life.  And  so  evidently  is  this 
the  case,  that  a  Protestant  Clergyman,  Dean  Sicift,  used  to  say, 
whenever  he  heard  of  any  Catholic  becoming  Protestant,  ‘I  wish, 
when  the  Pope  weeds  his  garden,  he  would  not  throw  his  nettles 
over  our  wall.  Of  this  class,  it  is  true,  there  have  been  a  few ; 
but  they  have  often  met  with  the  most  awful  judgments  of 
heaven.  Dr.  Milner  mentions  the  following,  in  his  ‘  End  of  Re¬ 
ligious  Controversy  ’ :  Smyth  was  one  of  those  wretched  priests 
who,  wanting  the  grace  necessary  for  living  up  to  the  strictness 
of  their  obligations,  left  the  Catholic  Church,  and  became  a  Pro¬ 
testant.  This  unfortunate  man  dropped  down  dead  in  Canterbury 
Cathedral,  about  the  year  1780.  About  the  same  time  another 
unprincipled  priest  of  Staftbrdshire,  of  the  name  of  Taylor,  met 
icith  the  same  fate,  in  stepping  into  a  stage-coach.  Another  still 
more  unprincipled  priest.  Dr.  Geddes,  with  Lewis,  of  Leominster, 
Holmes,  of  Essex,  and  Rogers,  of  Birmingham,  all  met  with  sud¬ 
den  deaths.  James  Quesnel,  and  James  Nolan  also,  having  both 
been  warned  by  their  friends  of  the  fate  they  might  expect,  but 
continued  to  waver  about  returning  to  their  duty,  both  dropped 
down  dead  in  the  streets,  the  former  at  Worcester,  the  latter  in 
London.  Awful  and  terrible  judgments  of  God,  Andrew,  are 
these,  on  the  crime  of  apostasy  ! 

“  But  it  is  quite  time  to  linish;  I  will  only  add  my  earnest  re¬ 
quest,  that  in  searching  for  the  true  religion,  you  will  often 
reflect  on  the  words  of  St.  Matthew  xvi.  26,  ‘What  will  it  profit 
a  man  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul 
Let  no  interest  nor  worldly  e.ase  be  here  consulted  ;  mind  not 
what  the  world  may  say  or  think.  E or  what  are  all  these  things 
when  put  in  the  balance  with  eternity  ?  Let  not  the  example  of 
parents,  or  friends,  or  relations,  prevent  your  examining  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  none  of  these  can  excuse  your 
ignorance  and  neglect  before  the  great  Judge  of  the  living  and 


ANDKEW’S  VISIT  TO  THE  CATHOLIC  CHAPEL- 


68i 


the  dead.  Allow  me  also,  Andrew,  to  say,  that,  according  to  oiir 
divines,  if  you  wish  to  succeed  in  your  search,  you  must  pray 
with  fervor  and  perseverance;  you  must,  too,  labor  to  renounce 
all  sinful  habits;  and  especially  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  which  too 
often  blinds  the  understanding  and  hardens  the  heart ;  for  ‘  true 
wisdom  will  not  enter  into  a  malevolent  soul,  nor  dwell  in  a  body 
subject  to  sin’  (Wisd.  i,  4).” 

CHAPTER  V. 

ANDREW’S  VISIT  TO  THE  CATHOLIC  CHAPEL. 

When  Smith  had  ended  his  argument,  Andrew  said:  “I 
thank  you  kindly  for  your  information.  Do  you  know  you  have 
almost  made  me  a  Catholic  ?  I  really  begin  to  think  that  you 
are  right  ;  and  I  am  fully  determined  to  examine  your  doctrines 
to  the  bottom.  Will  you  permit  me  to  go  with  you  to  the 
Chapel  to-morrow  ?” 

“Permit  you  to  go  ?”  said  Smith.  “Yes;  I  will  take  you 
with  pleasure.  But  come  early,  that  you  may  see  and  hear 
everything  ;  and  after  service  be  not  afraid  of  troubling  me 
with  questions.  But  for  the  present  I  will  wish  you  good-night, 
and  may  what  has  passed  this  evening  between  us,  be  produc¬ 
tive  of  friendship  here,  and  of  bliss  in  heaven  hereafter.” 

Before  parting,  they  both  kneeled  down,  and  Smith  prayed  as 
follows  :  “  I  adore  thee,  O  my  God,  and  love  thee  with  my  whole 
heart.  I  thank  thee  for  all  the  benefits  I  have  received  from 
thee,  especially  for  thy  having  made  me  what  I  am,  giving  me 
all  I  possess  both  of  soul  and  of  body,  redeemed  me  by  the 
precious  blood  of  thy  Son  Jesus,  and  preserved  me  this  day.  If 
I  have  offended  thee  this  day,  either  by  thought,  word,  deed,  or 
omission,  I  am  sincerely  sorry,’  and  humbly  beg  pardon.  I  am 
exceedingly  sorry,  too,  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  for  all  the 
sins  of  my  life  past  ;  and  I  firmly  resolve,  by  the  assistance  of 
thy  grace,  never  to  offend  thee  more,  but  to  avoid  both  sin  and 
the  occasi<)7is  of  sin.”  After  this,  he  said  the  “  Our  Father, 
etc.,”  “  Hail  Mary,”  the  Creed,  and  the  Confiteor  ;  he  prayed 
for  his  friends,  and  his  enemies,  too,  if  he  had  any  ;  for  the 
living  and  for  the  dead  ;  and  then  finished  by  begging  the  Al¬ 
mighty  to  bless  them,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Upon  rising  from  prayer,  Andrew  desired  Smith  to  show  him 
the  texts  he  had  quoted,  that  he  might  examine  them  at  leisure 
when  ulone.  Smith  immediately  complied  with  his  request.  He 
also  left  with  him  a  Catholic  Prayer  Book  ;  and  then,  wishing 
each  other  good-night,  they  parted. 

Andrew,  being  now  quite  alone,  examined  all  the  Texts  that 
had  been  quoted  ;  he  found  them  to  be  exactly  as  Smith  had 
told  him  ;  and  seemed  to  hear  something  whisper  in  his  ear, 


6S2 


AKCHBISnOP  HUGHES. 


The  Catholic  Church  is  the  true  Church.  He  spent  a  great 
part  of  the  night  in  praying  that  the  Lord  would  direct  him  to 
the  true  Church,  and  in  thinking  on  what  Smith  had  said  ;  and 
the  more  he  thought  and  examined,  the  more  persuaded  he  felt 
that  the  Catholic  Church  must  be  the  true  Church. 

'NThen  morning  arrived,  Andrew’s  heart  seemed  to  fail  him. 
He  began  to  waver  and  doubt  whether  he  should  go  or  not. 
“  What,”  said  he  to  himself — “  what  will  my  friends  and  rela¬ 
tions  say,  when  they  hear  that  I  have  been  to  the  Roman  Cha- 
pel^  as  they  call  it  in  derision  ?  They  will  laugh  at  me,  and  call 
me  a  turn-coat,  idolater,  and  other  such  opprobrious  names. 
They  may  possibly  all  forsake  me,  and  become  my  enemies.  But 
what  then  ?  Is  it  not  better  to  lose  the  favor  of  moi,  than  to 
lose  the  favor  of  God?  Is  it  not  better  to  have  all  the  vmrld 
my  enemies,  than  to  have  the  God  of  heaven  against  me  ?  Will 
the  fear  of  the  displeasure  of  friends  excuse  me  for  not  search¬ 
ing  after  and  embracing  the  truth,  when  I  shall  appear  before 
the  Judge  of  the  living  and. the  dead  ?  Ah  !  when  I  am  stretched 
on  my  death-bed,  my  eyes  dim,  and  about  to  be  for  ever  closed 
to  all  the  objects  of  this  world,  and  my  soul  about  to  hear  its 
irrevocable  sentence,  which  will  place  me  either  among  the 
blessed  in  heaven,  or  among  the  reprobate  in  hell,  I  siiall  care 
nothing  about  what  the  world  may  think  or  say  of  me.  My 
only  comfort  will  be  to  reflect,  that  I  have  done  my  duty,  and 
suffered  reproach  for  the  sake  of  Jesus,  who  has  declared  that 
‘  if  I  confess  him  and  his  doctrine  before  men,  he  will  also  con¬ 
fess  me  before  the  angels  of  God.  But  if  I  deny  him  before 
men,  he  will  deny  me  before  the  angels  of  God  ’  ”  (Luke  xii.  8, 
9).  Encouraged  by  these  thoughts,  Andrew  left  home,  and 
went  as  quick  as  possible  to  join  Smith  at  the  Chapel. 

On  entering  the  Chapel,  he  was  greatly  struck  with  awe  and 
surprise  at  the  appearance  of  the  place,  having  never  been  in  a 
Catholic  Chapel  before  ;  and  he  was  particularly  edifled  by  the 
devotion  and  piety  of  the  people.  But  there  was  one  thing 
which  scandalized  him  very  much;  and  that  was  the  image  of 
our  Saviour  on  the  cross,  which  is  placed  above  the  altar,  and 
before  which  the  people  kneel.  “Ah!”  said  he,  this  looks  like 
image  worship  ;  this  cannot  be  right ;  when  I  once  get  out  of 
this  place,  I  will  never  more  return.” 

After  service.  Smith  asked  Andrew  how  he  liked  it  ? 

“  Some  things,”  replied  Andrew,  “  I  like  remarkably  well  ; 
but  other  things  (and  you  must  excuse  my  candor)  I  do  not  like 
at  all;  especially  worshipping  the  above  the  altar; 

this  is  surely  idolatry.” 

“  O  Andrew  !”  exclaimed  Smith,  “  how  can  you  say  so  ?  Do 
you  really  think  that  we  icorship  the  image?  No,  Andrew  ;  no 
more  than  we  worship  the  walls.  We  worship  one  true  living 
God,  and  no  more  ;  we  believe  that  the  image  of  Jesus  Cruci- 


ANDREW  S  CONVERSION. 


6SS 


fied  can  neither  see  us,  nor  hear  us,  nor  help  us ;  and  conse¬ 
quently  that  it  would  he  a  crime  to  worship  or  adore  it.  We 
have  it  before  us,  when  we  pray  in  our  Chapels  and  Churches, 
to  remind  us  that  Jesus  suffered  and  died  for  us.  It  is  an  easy 
book,  which  can  be  read  by  the  ignorant  as  well  as  by  the 
learned  ;  a  book  in  which  all  see  the  ineffable  love  of  Jesus  for 
fallen  man.  It  is,  in  fact,  to  our  eyes,  what  a  good  sermon  is  to 
our  ears ;  it  serves  to  put  good  thoughts  into  our  heads,  and  to 
excite  us  to  the  love  of  God.  The  same  is  to  be  said  of  the 
sign  of  the  Cross  which  we  make  on  ourselves,  and  of  all  the 
ceremonies  you  see  the  Priest  perform  during  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  ;  they  are  all  of  them  intended  to  speak  to  our  senses,  and 
to  raise  our  thoughts  to  heavenly  things.” 

“  Thank  you.  Smith,”  said  Andrew,  “  for  your  explanation  of 
the  Catholic  use  of  images  and  pictures.  I  am  quite  satisfied. 
To  retain  the  Crucifix,  for  the  reasons  you  have  given,  is  both 
proper  and  profitable.  I  have  a  picture  of  Jesus  crucified,  hung¬ 
up  in  my  own  house,  for  the  same  purpose.  I  often  cast  my 
eyes  upon  it,  and  meditate  on  what  Jesus  suffered  for  the  love 
of  me.  And,  surely,  the  sufferings  and  love  of  Jesus  for  sinners, 
preached  to  us  from  the  Cross,  is  capable  of  softening  the  hard¬ 
est  of  hearts  to  compunction.  Oh  !  I  think  you  do  well  to  keep 
the  Crucifix  in  your  Chapels  for  so  good  a  purpose.  It  is  calcu¬ 
lated  to  excite  in  the  hearts  of  all  who  look  upon  it,  feelings  of 
compunction,  love,  and  confidence.” 

They  had  now  arrived  near  to  their  homes,  and  were  about  to 
wish  each  other  good-day,  Avheii  AndreAV  said  :  “  I  feel  very 
anxious  to  hear  more  about  your  religion  ;  let  us  have  a  little 
more  talk  before  we  part.” 

“  It  is  now  dinner  time,”  said  Smith,  “  I  will  call  upon  you 
after  dinner ;  and  I  will  promise  to  spend  the  afternoon  with 
you,  if  you  will  promise  to  go  with  me  in  the  evening  to  hear 
the  Catholic  lectures.” 

“Well,  I  promise  to  do  so,”  said  Andrew.  And  saying  this, 
they  parted. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Andrew’s  conversion. 

On  Andrew’s  returning  home,  his  friends,  who  had  heard  that 
he  had  been  at  the  Catholic  Chapel,  attacked  him  witli  every 
kind  of  abusive  language,  calling  him  Idolater,  Roman,  and 
Papist.  But  he  bore  all  their  scoffs  and  abuse  with  meekness 
and  patience  ;  comforting  himself  with  the  thought  that  Jesus 
had  been  treated  so  before  him,  and  had  promised  heaven  as  a 
reward  to  those  who  suffer  for  his  sake.  All  that  he  said  to 
them  was  this:  “If  the  Catholic  religion  be  false  and  errorceous, 
prove  it  to  be  so,  and  1  will  not  embrace  it;  if  it  be  the  true 


684 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


religion,  why  should  you  hinder  me  from  professing  it,  and  thus 
saving  my  soul?  I  have  examined  the  Protestant,  Calvinist, 
Methodist,  and  Catholic  religions ;  I  have  examined  them  with 
a  sincere  desire  of  discovering  the  true  one  ;  now,  if  after  such 
examination  I  have  found  tlie  Catholic  religion  to  be  the  true 
one,  and  of  all  others  the  safest  to  die  in,  surely  you  must  allow 
that  I  ought  to  embrace  it,  for  there  cannot  be  too  great  secu¬ 
rity  where  eternity  is  at  stake.” 

When  Smith  arrived  after  dinner,  he  was  overjoyed  to  find 
that  Andrew’s  faith  was  not  at  all  weakened  by  the  persecutions 
of  his  friends.  Indeed,  so  far  was  Andrew  from  being  ashamed 
of  the  true  doctrines  of  Jesus,  that  he  rejoiced  that  he  was 
accounted  worthy  to  suffer  reproach  for  the  name  of  Jesus. 

Smith  then  spoke  of  the  two  Sacraments  of  Penance  and  the 
Eucharist.  Against  these  Andrew  had  few  or  no  objections;  for 
he  had  always  been  led  to  believe,  from  what  he  had  read  in  the 
Common  Prayer  Book,  in  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  that  Co7i~ 
fession  of  Sins,  and  the  Absolution  of  the  Minister  of  Christ, 
were  two  necessary  conditions  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

He  had  always  thought,  too,  that  there  was  something  more 
than  Bread  and  Wine  in  the  Holy  Sacrament  ;  for  he  had  learnt 
from  his  Catechism,  when  a  boy,  “  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  are  verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received  by  the 
faithful  in  the  Lord’s  Supper.”  (See  Prot.  Catechism.') 

In  the  evening,  they  went  to  lectures.  And,  as  they  expected, 
the  Priest  was  speaking  of  the  two  Sacraments  of  Penance  and 
the  Eucharist,  and  so  clearly  did  he  prove  the  necessity  and 
divine  institution  of  them,  as  well  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
from  the  belief  all  Christian  ages,  that  all  doubts  immediately 
vanished;  and  after  the  lectures,  Andrew  professed  himself  a 
Catholic. 

From  that  day  he  employed  his  spare  time  in  reading  books 
of  instruction,  and  learning  the  Catholic  doctrine  from  the 
Priest.  And  he  was  happy  to  find  that  the  more  he  learnt  of 
the  Catholic  doctrine,  the  more  he  was  convinced  of  its  divinity. 

Being  now  freed  from  all  those  doubts  which  had  long  made 
him  miserable,  he  could  say  with  truth,  with  sincerity,  and  with 
.  t\\Q  fullest  conviction,!  believe  ijst  the  holy  Catholic  Church. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Andrew’s  preparation  for  the  sacraments. 

Andrew,  whilst  a  Protestant,  had  always  believed  faith 
alone  was  sufiicient  to  justify  a  sinner;  and  that  a  sure  trust, 
and  confidence  that  Christ  had  died  for  him  and  taken  away  his 
sins,  was  all  that  was  necessary  for  justification.  He  had  im¬ 
agined,  that  the  moment  a  sinner  c;)uld  believe  this,  he  became 


Andrew’s  preparation  for  the  sacraments.  685 

holy,  and  justified  before  God;  and  that  the  Spirit  then  witness- 
eth  to  Ids  spirit  that  he  is  a  child  of  God.  He  had  often  heard 
persons  declare  that  they  had  that  spirit;  he  had  often  heard 
them  assert,  with  as  much  apparent  confidence  as  if  God  him¬ 
self  had  revealed  it  to  them,  that  all  their  sins  were  forgiven 
through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  that  they  were  so  free 
from  all  sins  that,  if  they  were  to  die  at  the  moment  they  w^ere 
speaking,  they  should  hifallihly  go  to  heaven.  He  had  often 
envied  them  their  apparent  happiness.  “  Oh  !  how  happy,”  he 
would,  at  times,  exclaim,  “must  they  be,  who  are  free  from  all 
doubts  and  fears,  and  are  sure  to  go  to  heaven.”  lie  would 
often  endeavor  to  persuade  himself  that  he  was  of  that  number, 
“I  have  been  a  sinner,”  he  would  say,  “but  Jesus  has  died  for 
me ;  yea,  he  has  even  taken  away  my  sins.  Why  should  I  fear  ? 
Through  faith  in  him  I  am  certain  of  heaven.”  But  notwith¬ 
standing  all  this,  Andrew  could  never  feel  that  certainty  of  jus¬ 
tification  of  which  he  heard  some  others  boast  ;  and,  indeed, 
it  was  a  singular  mercy  of  God  he  never  did  feel  it.  If  Andrew 
had  once  been  deluded  by  the  evil  spirit  so  far  as  to  glory  in  his 
own  righteousness,  his  pride  and  self-conceit  would  have  driven 
the  Spirit  of  God  far  from  him  ;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  “  resisteth 
the  proud,  and  giveth  grace  to  the  humble  ”  (James  iv.  6).  He 
might  have  been  left  in  the  ways  of  darkness  and  delusion  ;  like 
the  proud  and  self-conceited  Pharisee,  looking  upon  himself  as 
a  saint  free  fi'om  sin,  and  being  in  reality  and  before  God  a  sin¬ 
ner  covered  with  guilt ;  walking  in  a  way  apparently  good  and 
secure,  but  in  the  end  leading  to  death  (Prov.  xiv.  12). 

The  Almighty,  by  a  special  grace,  was  pleased  to  call  Andrew 
from  the  ways  of  error  to  his  true  Church,  “  to  which  he  daily 
calls  such  as  shall  be  saved  ”  (Acts  ii.  iV).  Here  Andrew 
learned  a  true,  rational,  and  scriptural  mode  of  justification. 
Here  he  learned  that/iwV/i  alone  can  never  justify  a  sinner;  that 
besides many  other  conditions  are  required  to  drive  away 
sin  and  to  deliver  us  from  death.  Here  he  learned  to  say  with  St. 
Paul,  “  Although  I  have  all  faith,  so  that  I  could  remove  moun¬ 
tains,  and  have  not  charity,  I  am  nothing”  (1  Cor.  xiii.  2). 
Here  he  learned  from  St.  James,  “  that  by  u'orks  a  man  is  justi¬ 
fied,  and  not  by  faith  only’’'’  (James  xi,  24).  Here  also  he 
learned  that  the  following  virtues  are  necessary  for  the  justifi¬ 
cation  of  a  sinner  : 

1,  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  ;  “  for  without  faith  it  is  impossible 
to  please  God”  (Heb.  xi.  6). 

2,  The  fear  of  God  ;  “for  the  fear  of  the  Lord  driveth  out 
sin  ;  for  he  that  is  without  fear  cannot  be  justified  ”  (Eccles. 
i.  27). 

3,  Hope  and  confidence  in  the  mercy  of  God  ;  for  “  he 
that  putteth  his  trust  in  the  Lord  shall  be  healed  ”  (Prov.  xxviii. 
25).  And  therefore  “  ive  are  saved  by  hope''’  (liom.  viii.  24). 


686 


AKCHEISHOP  HDGHES. 


4,  A  SINCERE  LOVE  OF  GoD  ;  for  “  he  that  loveth  not,  know- 
eth  not  God  ;  for  God  is  love”  (John  iv.  8).  And  “he  that 
loveth  not,  abideth  in  death”  (1  John  iii.  14).  Hence  “many 
sins  are  forgiven  her,  because  she  hath  loved  much  ”  (Luke 
xiii.  3). 

5.  A  SINCERE  REPENTANCE  FOR  OUR  SINS  ;  for  except  yOU 
repent,  you  shall  all  likewise  perish  ”  (Luke  xiii.  3).  And,  there¬ 
fore,  “  repent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out  ”  (Acts  iii.  12). 

Andrew  learned  also,  from  the  same  divine  anthoTity^  that 
when  our  souls  are  thus  disposed  by  the  above-mentioned  virtues 
of  Faith,  Hope,  Fear,  Love,  and  Repentance,  we  must,  in  the 
next  place,  have  recourse  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  if  we 
have  not  yet  been  baptized  ;  or  to  the  Sacra.ment  of  Penance, 
if  we  have  lost  the  grace  of  justification  by  falling  into  sin  after 
Baptism.  Because  these  sacraments  are  the  sacred  instruments 
ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  Qoily  ordinary  means  by  which 
the  grace  of  justification  is  poured  dov/n  into  our  souls,  when 
our  souls  are  disposed  by  the  above  virtues.  In  consequence  of 
this  belief,  Andrew  became  extremely  anxious  to  receive  these 
Sacraments  so  necessary  for  his  justification;  and  he  lost  no  time 
in  making  a  due  preparation  for  them. 

For  weeks  before  his  confession  he  allotted  a  portion  of  each 
day,  as  much  as  his  worldly  occupations  would  ])ermit,  to  hum¬ 
ble  and  fervent  prayer,  begging  that  the  Holy  Sjiirit  would 
enlighten  the  darkness  of  his  understanding,  and  enable  him 
both  to  hioiv  his  sins,  and  to  detest  them.  Often  would  he  say, 
“  O  Lord,  I  desire  with  sincerity  to  leave  my  evil  ways,  and  to 
return  to  thee,  the  fountain  of  life.  Like  the  prodigal  child,  I 
desire  to  go  home  to  my  I^'ather,  though  I  am  infinitely  unworthy 
to  be  called  his  child.  I  will  go  to  him  in  hoi)e  of  being 
received  with  the  same  tender  mercy  and  compassion  as  the 
prodigal  son  mentioned  in  Luke  xv.  I  know  that  he  is  a  God 
of  mercy,  and  that  a  contrite  and  humble  heart  he  will  not 
despise.” 

In  the  examination  of  his  conscience,  he  carefully  read  over 
the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Conijnands  of  the  Church,  and 
the  seven  deadly  sins,  which  he  found  in  his  Prayer  Book.  And 
in  doing  this  he  perceived  that  though  he  had  not  been  a  scan¬ 
dalous  sinner,  thoTigh  he  had  never  been  guilty  of  murder, 
drunkenness,  theft,  or  adultery,  yet  he  was  far  from  being  inno¬ 
cent.  He  discovered  hundreds  of  sins  which  he  had  never  before 
thought  of,  sins  of  thought,  of  words,  of  actions,  and  of  omis¬ 
sions.  The  more  he  examined  his  conscience,  the  more  he  'was 
convinced  that  “in  many  things  we  all  offend”  (James  iii.  2). 
And  that,  “if  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves, 
and  the  truth  is  not  in  us  ”  (1  John  i.  8). 

In  order  to  excite  in  his  heart  sentiments  of  compunction  and 


Andrew’s  preparation  for  the  sacraments.  687 

sorrow,  he  would  often  reflect  on  tlie  great  goodness  of  God  to 
liim,  and  his  base  ingratitude.  He  would  often  exclaim,  in  the 
bitterness  of  soul :  “  It  grieves  me,  O  my  God,  it  grieves  me 
to  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  that  I  have  offended  thee.  Oh  ! 
that  I  could  now,  like  Magdalen,  present  myself  at  the  feet  of 
my  Saviour.  Oh  !  that  I  could  wash  them  with  penitential  tears  ! 
Forgive  me,  this  time,  O  Jesus;  forgive  me,  O  Father  of  mercy, 
and,  by  thy  grace,  I  will  never  offend  thee  more.” 

When  the  day  arrived  on  which  he  was  to  make  his  first  con¬ 
fession,  he  felt  a  great  internal  struggle.  The  sins  of  his  life 
now  all  crowded  on  his  mind  in  their  blackest  colors.  So 
great  did  they  appear  to  him,  that  he  thought  he  could  never 
for  shame  disclose  them  to  the  minister  of  God.  And  he  'was 
upon  the  point  of  falling  back,  when  the  Almighty  conducted 
him  to  his  Catholic  friend  Smith. 

This  good  Inan  assured  him  that  his  difficulties  were  more 
imaginary  than  real  ;  that  the  Pri('st  was  bound,  by  all  laws 
divine  and  human,  to  a  pe,r}Mual  secrecAj ^  and  would  receive  him 
with  all  the  kindness  and  tenderness  of  a  parent ;  and  that,  if 
he  neglected  this  divine  institution,  he  could  neither  expect 
peace  here,  nor  happiness  hereafter. 

Encouraged  thus  by  Smith,  aided  by  the  grace  of  God,  he 
overcame  every  obstacle  which  the  enemy  of  mankind  had  thrown 
in  his  Avay  ;  with  the  utmost  sincerity  of  heart,  he  unloaded  his 
conscience  of  that  heavy  burden  which  till  then  had  oppressed 
it ;  and  he  experienced  that  cheerful  and  exquisite  delight  which, 
is  the  fruit  of  a  good  conscience. 

After  his  confession,  the  object  which  above  all  others  he  most 
ardently  longed  for  was  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
t\\e  Bread  of  Life,  tha  same  that  came  down  from  heaven  for 
the  life  of  the  world.  “O  Jesus!”  he  would  often  say — “O 
Jesus  !  my  dear,  my  adorable  Saviour,  how  much  am  I  bound  to 
love  and  to  adore  thee  !  Thou  hast  not  only  become  man,  and 
died  for  me,  and  for  all  poor  sinners,  but  thou  hast  continued  thy 
endearing  love  and  tenderness  to  us,  even  by  giving  tliyself  to 
us  in  the  Holy  Sacrament ;  inviting  us  to  receive  thee  in  the 
most  pressing  manner  ;  calling  out  to  us  (Matt.  xi.  8),  ‘  Come  to 
me,  all  you  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  refresh 
you.’  Oh  !  teach  me,  dear  Lord,  to  make  a  suitable  return  of 
love.  O  Source  of  all  good  !  come  and  take  possession  of  my 
soul;  I  offer  it  to  thee  without  reserve.  Thou  hast  declared  that 
thy  delight  is  to  be  with  the  sons  of  men.  Ohj  may  it  be  always 
my  delight  to  be  wnth  thee !  Let  me  die  to  the  world,  and  die 
to  all  creatures,  that  I  may  live  to  thee  alone.  Come,  dear 
Jesus  ;  come  take  away  all  my  sins  ;  blot  out  all  my  iniquities  ; 
create  a  clean  heart  in  me,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  my 
bowels.  May  thy  sacred  Body  and  Blood,  which  I  now  design, 
though  unworthy,  to  receive,  obtain  for  me  the  remission  of  my 


688 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


sins,  a  victory  over  all  my  evil  thoughts,  the  beginning  of  a  new 
life,  and  a  sure  protection  of  soul  and  body  against  all  the  snares 
of  my  enemies.” 

Wlien  he  approached  the  altar,  and  beheld  tlie  sacred  Host,  he 
exclaimed,  “I  adore  thee,  0  .Tesus,  under  these  humble  veils; 
though  I  see  thee  not,  as  Tliomas  did,  yet  do  I  confess  thee  to 
be  my  Lord  and  my  God  !  O  Eternal  Word  !  the  deliglit  of 
angels  and  of  men,  I  adore  thee !  Thou  knowest  I  am  sick  and 
weak  ;  oh !  lieal  me,  strengthen  me,  and  have  mercy  on  me  !  My 
only  hope  is  in  thee,  and  by  thee  alone.” 

As  soon  as  he  had  received  the  Holy  Communion,  with  a  lively 
faith  and  most  profound  humility,  he  adored  Jesus,  and  enter¬ 
tained  him  with  acts  of  Faith,  Love,  Ilmnility,  and  Praise  ;  con¬ 
secrating  to  his  divine  service  his  soul  and  body  for  time  and 
eternity.  The  rest  of  the  day  he  spent  in  more  than  ordinary 
retirement  and  recollection,  begging  of  Jesus  nei^er  to  forsake 
him,  but  to  lead  him  safe  through  life  to  a  blessed  immortality  ! 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Andrew’s  daily  exercises. 

After  communion,  considering  himself  now  belonging  to  God 
in  an  especial  manner,  and  having  become  the  temple  of  the  liv¬ 
ing  God,  consecrated  by  his  divine  presence,  he  resolved  in  future 
to  employ  all  the  faculties  of  his  soul,  and  senses  of  his  body,  in 
promoting,  as  far  as  human  weakness  would  permit,  the  greater 
honor  and  glory  of  God.  From  this  time,  he  became  a  model  of 
every  virtue.  In  the  morning,  as  soon  as  lie  awoke,  he  never 
failed  to  give  his  first  thoughts  to  God.  “  O  heavenly  Father,” 
he  would  say,  “  I  give  thee  most  sincere  thanks  for  having  pre¬ 
served  me  the  night  past  from  all  dangers,  and  brought  me  to 
the  beginning  of  another  day ;  I  offer  to  thee  every  thought, 
ivorcl,  and  action,  of  this  day,  to  thy  greater  glory  ;  I  offer  to 
thee  also  whatever  I  may  have  to  suffer,  whether  from  pain, 
sickness,  or  the  ill-nature  and  malice  of  those  with  whom  I  am 
obliged  to  associate,  to  be  united  with  the  sufferings  of  Jesus, 
for  the  expiation  of  my  sins.  And  I  beg  and  beseech  thee  to 
give  thy  blessing  to  these  my  resolutions,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  amen,”  at  the 
same  time  making  the  sign  of  the  Cross. 

When  clothed,  he  would  kneel  down  and  adore  God,  with  all 
the  powers  of  his  soul,  repeating  acts  of  faith,  hope,  love,  and 
contrition;  adding  the  “ Our  Father,”  etc.,  “Hail  Mary,”  etc., 
“  I  believe,”  etc.,  and  the  other  jirayers  out  of  the  “  True  1?iety,” 
which  he  concluded,  as  often  as  time  would  permit,  with  a  short 
lesson  out  of  some  pious  book. 


ANDKEW’S  DEATH. 


689 


"When  he  began  his  work,  he  invariably  made  the  sign  of  the 
Cross,  begging  that  God  would  bless  both  him  and  his  work, 
through  the  merits  of  Jesus,  who  died  on  the  Cross,  saying  at 
the  same  time,  “  O  my  God,  I  offer  this  work  to  thee,  please  to 
give  it  thy  blessing.” 

During  his  work,  his  heart  was,  as  much  as  possible,  fixed  on 
God  ;  he  seemed  to  hear,  in  the  interior  of  his  soixl,  a  soft,  sweet 
voice  commanding  him  to  respect,  and  inviting  him  to  adore  the 
Great  God,  before  whom  the  whole  world  is  as  if  it  were  not. 
He  found  God  everywhere  ;  he  everywhere  spoke  to  him  by 
pious  ejaculations;  and  everywhere  strove  to  please  him  by 
referring  all  his  actions  to  his  honor.  So  that  he  literally  ful¬ 
filled  what  the  Apostle  commands,  “  All  whatsoever  you  do  in 
word  or  in  work,  do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ” 
(Colos.  iii.  17).  When  tempted  to  sin,  he  would  make  the  sign 
of  the  Cross  upon  his  heart,  and  say  :  “  O  Lord,  save  me  or  I 
perish:  thou  who  made  me,  have  mercy  on  me.” 

When  affected  by  sickness  or  pain,  he  would  say,  “O  Lord, 
thy  will  be  done  ;  I  take  this  for  my  sins.”  But  his  chief  delight 
was  in  making  acts  of  the  Love  of  God  ‘  a  hundred  times  a  day 
he  would  repeat  this,  or  the  like  prayer  :  “  O  God,  I  love  thee  ; 
I  love  thee  with  my  whole  heart  ;  oh  !  that  I  could  love  thee  as 
the  blessed  love  thee  in  heaven :  do  thou,  O  God,  teach  me  to 
love  thee  as  I  ought,  every  day  more  and  more.” 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Andrew’s  death. 

Andrew  had  now  lived  in  the  practice  of  every  virtue  till  the 
age  of  fifty,  when  he  was  visited  with  his  last  sickness.  He 
received  it  as  a  notice  from  his  heavenly  Father  that  it  was  now 
time  for  him  to  quit  this  woi'ld,  and  to  receive  the  reward  of  his 
labors.  As  he  had  not  fixed  his  heart  on  the  goods  of  this  world, 
he  felt  no  great  uneasiness  at  the  prospect  of  his  having  shortly 
to  leave  them.  All  his  thoughts  were  directed  to  the  sanctifica¬ 
tion  of  his  soul,  and  to  arm  himself  against  the  attacks  of  his 
spiritual  enemies,  who,  according  to  1  St.  Peter  v.,  “  are  always 
going  aboitt  like  roaring  lions  seeking  whom  they  may  devour,” 
but  who  exert  themselves  most  against  us  at  the  approach  of 
death. 

Following  the  admonition  of  St.  James  v.  14,  “Is  any  sick 
among  you  ?  let  him  call  in  the  priests  of  the  church,”  he  did 
call  in  the  Priests  of  the  Church.  He  also  confessed  his  sins  to 
them  according  to  the  direction  of  the  same  Apostle,  “  Confess 
your  sins  one  to  another,  and  pray  for  one  another,  that  you 
may  be  saved  ”  (v.  IG).  He  was  then  anointed  with  holy  oil, 


690 


ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


blessed  by  the  bishop  for  that  purpose,  as  St.  James  directs,  “Is 
any  sick  among  yon  ?  let  him  call  lor  the  priests  of  the  church ; 
and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  And  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick,  and 
the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up  ;  and  if  he  have  committed  sins,  they 
shall  be  forgiven  him”  (St.  James  v.  14,  15). 

While  the  Pi-iest  was  praying  for  him,  and  anointing  his  eyes, 
ears,  and  other  senses  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  he  would  exclaim, 
with  a  lively  faith  and  great  confidence  in  the  mercy  of  God, 
and  the  merits  of  Jesus  his  Saviour:  “By  this  holy  anointing, 
and  by  the  prayers  of  thy  Church,  pardon  me,  dear  Jesus,  all  the 
sins  I  have  committed  by  my  ejms,  eai-s,  nose,  mouth,  hands,  and 
feet.”  With  pious  resignation,  he  said,  “  Dispose  of  me,  O  God, 
as  thou  knowest  best,  do  with  me  whatever  thou  pleasest,  give 
me  life  or  death  ;  all  that  I  beg  of  thee  is  this — oh,  and  I  will 
continue  to  beg  it  of  thee  with  fervor  and  perseverance — that 
whenever  I  die,  I  may  die  the  death  of  the  just,  that  I  may  see 
thee,  and  love  thee,  O  God,  for  eternity.” 

During  the  remainder  of  his  sickness,  nothing  on  earth  seemed 
to  engage  his  affections  ;  every  motion  of  his  heart  was  directed 
to  God  ;  he  sighed  only  for  God  ;  he  spoke  of  nothing  but  of 
God  ;  in  a  word,  his  conversation  was  in  heaven.  The  sufferings 
of  Jesus  on  the  Cross  were  to  him  a  subject  of  unspeakable  com¬ 
fort ;  he  would  often  place  himself,  in  spirit,  at  the  feet  of  Jesus 
with  Magdalen,  and  wash  them  with  his  tears ;  putting  his  con¬ 
fidence  in  him  alone,  and  begging  him  to  be  his  Advocate  with 
the  Father.  Frequently  would  he  exclaim,  with  all  the  fervor 
of  his  soul :  “  O  thou  comforter  of  distressed  souls !  O  good  Shep¬ 
herd  !  do  not  thou  forsake  me,  when  everything  else  will  leave 
and  abandon  me.  Be  mindful  of  me  a  poor  creature,  whom  thou 
liast  redeemed  with  thy  precious  blood  ;  let  those  sacred  hands, 
which  were  nailed  to  the  Cross,  be  raised  up  for  me  ;  let  that 
sacred  blood,  which  thou  sheddest  so  plentifully  for  me  and  for 
all  poor  sinners,  plead  for  me,  and  open  for  me  the  gates  of 
heaven. 

“  Ah  !  and  when  my  feet,  benumbed  ivith  death,  shall  admonish 
me  that  my  mortal  course  is  drawing  to  an  end.  Merciful  Jems, 
have  mercy  on  me. 

“  When  my  eyes  shall  become  dim,  and  troubled  at  the  ap¬ 
proach  of  death,  and  shall  fix  themselves  on  thee,  my  last  and 
only  support.  Merciful  Jesus.,  have  mercy  on  me. 

“When  my  face  shall  become  pale  and  livid,  and  shall  inspire 
the  beholders  with  ])ity  and  dismay  ;  when  my  ears  shall  be  shut 
for  ever  to  the  discourse  of  men;  when  the  last  tear,  the  foi’e- 
runner  of  my  dissolution,  shall  drop  from  my  eye;  when  my  rela¬ 
tions  and  friends,  encircling  my  bed,  shall  shed  the  tear  of  pity 
over  me,  and  invoke  thy  clemency  in  my  behalf.  Merciful  Jesus., 
have  mercy  on  me. 


ANDRRW’S  DEATH. 


691 


“Oil!  at  that  awful  hour,  send  thy  holy  angels,  thy  minister¬ 
ing  spirits,  to  encamp  round  my  bed;  to  protect  me  against  all 
the  powers  of  darkness;  to  defend  me  from  all  my  enemies;  and 
to  conduct  my  soul  to  the  mansions  of  eternal  repose.” 

Addressing  himself  to  his  relations  and  friends,  who  had  come 
to  pray  for  him  and  with  him,  he  thanked  them  kindly,  assuring 
them  that  he  would  not  forget  to  pray  hard  for  them  when 
arrived  in  heaven.  Seeing  some  of  them  weeping,  he  said  :  “  Oh! 
do  not  grieve.  Is  it  not  time  that  I  should  consummate  my  sacri¬ 
fice  ?  If  you  truly  loved  me,  you  ought  to  rejoice  at  seeing  me  so 
near  my  longed-for  country,  the  Paradise  of  God,  the  region  of 
never-ending  joys.  Our  friendship,”  said  he,  “  I  hope,  will  not 
be  broken  by  death.  No;  I  hope  it  will  be  renewed  for  eternity 
in  heaven.  After  a  few  more  years  spent  faithfully  by  you  in 
the  service  of  God,  we  shall  again  meet  in  unchangeable  and 
never-ending  bliss.  O  my  beloved  friends!  welcome,  happy  the 
hour  which  is  to  remove  me  from  misery  to  happiness^  and  from 
death  to  immortality.  ‘I  rejoice  at  the  things  that  are  said  to 
me,  we  shall  go  into  the  house  of  our  Lord’  ”  (Ps.  cxxi.). 

Andrew  being  now  almost  exhausted,  and  no  longer  able  to 
speak,  placed  his  arms  over  his  breast  in  the  form  of  a  Cross, 
otfering  himself  a  sacrifice  of  expiation  for  his  sins,  in  union  with 
the  sufferings  of  Jesus  on  the  Cross.  The  composure  and  peace 
which  appeared  on  his  countenance  seemed  to  say  to  all  the  be¬ 
holders,  that  his  preparation  for  death  was  perfect,  and  his  pas¬ 
sage  to  heaven  safe  and  secure.  God  had  adopted  him  as  his 
child;  Jesus  had  taken  up  his  abode  with  him;  the  angels  of  God 
bad  encamped  round  about  him;  when  at  length  the  moment  of 
his  departure  arrives.  The  angels  conduct  his  happy  soul  to  the 
company  of  the  blessed;  he  beholds  his  God  face  to  face;  and  is 
instantly  and  eternally  happy.  “  Oh!  may  we  die  the  death  of 
the  righteous;  may  our  last  end  be  like  his!”  (Numbers  xxiii.  10)* 


';  "I.  "r.  .n  M-,1  4,lor(..,l  -M  ;I.'..  -  -M  Wf  ¥  ■<; ' 


IW'.^  C ••^^,‘‘-t,::n7f,i  ,j,iol.l  -m  ;I.-  -M  » V  x;  -  •(^'".>?T- 


IV*  I 


I  \ 


f « 


•  yGI.  . 


,r. 


■  ^  1  • 


»  ■ 


’■■■m 


..  rt  .  - 


r.: 


A' 


r«‘i 


APPENDIX 


THE  O’CONNELL  ADDBESS. 

[As  reference  is  made  to  the  following  letter  in  a  portion  of  this  volume,  th* 
Editor  deems  it  but  right  to  give  it  in  full ;] 

To  THE  Editor  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer  : 

Dear  Sir — Finding  myself  indirectly  alluded  to  in  your  remarks  of  yesterday 
morning,  I  beg  leave  to  trouble  you  with  the  following  observations,  which  I  re¬ 
quest  you  will  do  me  the  favor  to  insert  for  the  information  of  all  whom  the  ques¬ 
tion  may  concern. 

You  say,  “  ‘  An  Adopted  Citizen’  will  find  below  an  Address  sent  to  this  country 
by  Daniel  O’Connell.  Father  Mathew,  and  sixty  thousand  others,  and  if  he  questions 
its  authenticity,  we  refer  him  to  the  Catholic  Bishop  and  priests  of  New  Y ork  and 
Boston.” 

As  one  of  the  parties  here  “  referred  to,”  I  take  the  liberty  of  assuring  you  that 
I  have  no  means  of  judging  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Address  except  such  as  has 
been  afforded  to  all  the  readers  of  your  excellent  journal  by  its  publication.  My 
first  and  decided  impression  is,  that,  as  it  appears,  it  is  not  authentic.  In  this 
opinion  I  shall  persevere  until  its  authentic  history  shall  have  been  made  known. 
How  it  has  been  procured — under  what  circumstances — how  much  of  the  truth 
may  be  published  in  connection  with  the  Address — how  much  of  the  explanation 
may  be  suppressed,  are  questions  the  answers  to  which  must  be  furnished  before 
I  can  make  up  my  mind  to  believe  in  its  authenticity. 

Should  it  prove  to  be  authentic,  then  I  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring  my  opinion, 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  naturalized  Irishman  to  resist  and  repudiate  the  Ad¬ 
dress  with  indignation.  Not  precisely  because  of  the  doctrines  it  contains,  but 
because  of  their  having  emanated  from  a  foreign  source,  and  of  their  tendency  to 
operate  on  questions  of  domestic  and  national  policy.  I  am  no  friend  to  Slavery, 
but  I  am  still  less  friendly  to  any  attempt  of  foreign  origin  to  abolish  it. 

The  duties  of  naturalized  Irishmen  or  others,  I  consider  to  be  in  no  wise  dis¬ 
tinct  or  different  from  those  of  native-born  Americans.  And  if  it  be  proved  an 
attempt  has  been  made  by  this  Address  or  any  other  address  to  single  them  out  on 
any  question  appertaining  to  the  foreign  or  domestic  policy  of  the  United  States, 
in  any  other  capacity  than  that  of  the  whole  population,  then  it  will  be  their  duty 
to  their  country  and  their  conscience,  to  rebuke  such  an  attempt  come  from  what 
foreign  source  it  may,  in  the  most  decided  manner  and  language  that  common 
courtesy  will  permit. 

The  reference  made  to  me,  among  others,  in  your  remarks,  appeared  to  me  to 
require  this  explanation,  without  which  your  readers  might  suppose  that  1  had 
means  to  determine  the  authenticity  of  the  Address. 

1  am,  sir,  with  great  respect. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

>i<  JOHN  HUGHES,  Bishop,  Ac. 


March  11,  1842. 


654 


APPENDIX. 


A  CARD  TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

[The  following  card  appeared  in  the  daily  papers  of  November  let,  1841,  just 
before  the  famous  election  wlien  the  Catholics  made  out  a  ticket  of  their  own  :] 

([[^”  BISHOP  HUGHES,  unable  to  reply  to  the  many  misrepresentations  of 
the  public  press  in  any  other  way  than  by  a  card,  respectfully  begs  leave  to  assure 
the  community  that  he  is  neither  a  Whig  nor  a  Loco  Foco,  nor  a  politician  of  any 
description.  He  does  not  permit  himself  or  any  of  the  clergy  to  meddle  in  tha 
business  of  politics.  He  does  not  ask  for  sectarian  schools,  nor  did  he  ever — he 
does  not  ask  that  any  of  the  public  money  should  be  given  to  his  denomination, 
nor  did  he  ever. 

Any  system  of  education  which  shall  not  interfere  with  the  religious  rights  of 
any  denomination,  will  satisfy  him.  The  present  system  is  not  of  this  description  ; 
it  insists  on  giving  what  is  termed  the  “  legal  quantity  of  religious  instruction.  It 
has  many  opponents  in  this  city  on  strong  constitutional  grounds. 

Let  the  people  examine  it  and  judge  for  themselves.  The  Public  School  Society 
or  their  friends  first  made  the  school  question  a  political  test.  They  attempted, 
and  almost  succeeded  in  uniting  the  two  political  parties  in  favor  of  the  Society, 
right  or  wrong ;  so  that  its  opponents,  if  they  voted  at  all,  would  be  compelled  to 
vote  for  the  Society,  and  against  themselves.  This  was  too  much. 

From  this  alternative  they  had  no  escape  except  to  throw  away  their  votes  on 
a  ticket  of  their  own.  This  alternative,  forced  on  them  by  the  I'ublic  School 
Society,  or  its  friends,  gave  occasion  to  the  meeting  at  Carroll  Hall.  It  was  not 
a  political  meeting. 

It  was  not  a  meeting  of  Catholics,  as  such,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  terms  of  the 
call  that  convened  it.  Bishop  Hughes  did  not  “  preside”  at  the  meeting. 

The  persons  composing  that  meeting  unanimously  determined  to  support  no 
man  who  was  pledged  to  the  Public  School  Society.  Bishop  Hughes  approved  de¬ 
cidedly,  and  continues  to  approve,  of  this  determination.  These  are  the  facts  of 
the  case.  But  between  this  and  meddling  in  politics  he  draws  a  wide  distinction. 


THREAT  TO  ASSASSINATE  BISHOP  HUGHES. 

I.v  the  letter  to  Mayor  Harper,  Bishop  Hughes  refers  to  a  letter  received  by  him 
from  a  person  in  Philadelphia,  threatening  to  assassinate  him.  The  following 
correspondence  took  place  in  consequence  of  that  letter ; 

Mayor’s  Office,  New  York,  May  22,  1844. 

To  THE  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes  ; 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — My  attention  has  been  directed  to  a  letter,  bearing  your 
name,  and  addressed  to  me,  in  the  columns  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer^  If  there 
had  been  any  thing  in  it  requiring  an  answer  from  me,  you  would  doubtless  have 
thought  it  proper  to  send  me  a  copy  before  publication  ;  and  as  you  did  not,  I  am 
right,  probably,  in  supposing  that  your  exclusive  object  was  to  address  the  public. 

I  p)erceive,  however,  in  the  first  paragraph,  that  you  have  been  threatened  with 
personal  injury,  by  one  whose  name  is  not  withheld  from  you.  This  is  a  matter 
properly  falling  within  my  cognizance ;  and  I  have  to  request,  therefore,  that  you 
will  favor  me  with  such  information  and  evidence  as  may  be  in  your  power,  avail¬ 
able  for  my  oflicial  action  in  the  premises. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be. 

Very  respectfully,  your  ob’t  serv’t, 

JAMES  HARPER. 


[Reply  of  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hughes.'\ 

263  Mulberry  St.,  New  York,  May  24,  1844. 

Respected  and  Dear  Sir — I  have  just  received  your  letter  of  yesterday.  Yon 
•re  right  n  your  conjecture  as  to  my  motive  in  publishing  my  letter  without  hav 


APPENDIX. 


695 


ing  first  furnished  you  with  a  copy,  I  addressed  it  to  you  as  the  chief  magistrate 
of  the  city,  both  because  it  contained  matter  which  might  have  reference  to  your 
official  character,  and  also  to  win  for  it,  by  that  address,  that  respect  to  which  it 
might  not  be  entitled  by  my  signature. 

1  am  grateful  for  the  kind  maimer  in  which  you  refer  to  it  in  your  letter  now  be¬ 
fore  me.  The  good  opinion  of  one  whom  I  reckon  among  the  best  of  men — Mr. 
Thurlow  Weed — had  long  since  secured  for  you  the  humble  feeling  of  my  sincere 
respect. 

^  you  will  have  the  kindness  to  advise  me  by  bearer  of  the  time  and  place  when 
it  would  be  most  convenient  for  you  to  give  me  an  interview,  I  shall  do  myself  the 
honor  of  waiting  on  you  with  the  letter  referred  to,  and  also  such  other  evidence  as 
you  may  be  pleased  to  require,  and  as  it  may  be  in  my  power  to  coimnunicate. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain, 

With  sincere  respect,  your  ob’t  serv’t, 

JOHN  HLTGHES,  Bishop,  N.  Y. 


New  York,  May  26,  1844. 

Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hdghes  ; 

Rev.  axd  De.^r  Sir — I  have  your  favor  of  yesterday,  and  will  be  happy  to  sea 
you  at  my  office  on  Monday,  at  12  o’clock — or  at  any  other  time  you  may  name  as 
more  convenient  to  yourself — in  relation  to  the  matters  referred  to  in  your  com¬ 
munication. 

With  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  HARPER. 


Mayor’s  Office,  New  York,  May  28,  1844. 
Hon.  J.  M.  Scott,  Mayor  of  Philadelphia  : 

Dear  Sir — Some  days  ago,  a  letter,  addressed  to  me  as  Mayor  of  New  York,  was 
published  by  Bishop  Hughes,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  which  I  was  in¬ 
formed  that  he  had  received  a  communication  threatening  him  with  death.  Sup¬ 
posing  that  the  threat  had  been  made  by  some  person  in  this  city,  I  thought  it  my 
duty  to  call  on  Bishop  Hughes  for  the  name ;  and  in  answer  to  that  call,  the 
Bishop  has  placed  in  my  hands  the  paper  enclosed,  which  appears  to  have  been 
written  by  one  of  your  citizens,  the  brother  of  a  man  who  was  slain  in  the  recent 
deplorable  occurrences  at  Kensington.  Of  course,  the  subject  is  not  within  my 
jurisdiction,  and  I  therefore  send  the  paper  to  you,  not  doubting  that  you  will  take 
such  action  upon  it  as  may  be  necessary  and  practicable. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  suggest  what  that  action  should  be,  but  I  may  take  leave  to 
remark,  that  the  writer  of  the  threatening  letter  is  apparently  a  man  of  some  intel¬ 
ligence  ;  that  he  wrote  under  the  influence  of  highly  exasperated  feelings,  which 
time  and  reflection  may  have  subdued,  if  not  entirely  done  away ;  and  that,  if  he 
really  entertained  and  still  entertains  the  murderous  purpose  of  which  he  speaks, 
his  mind  may  perhaps  be  brought  into  a  better  frame  by  earnest  and  friendly 
expostulation. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  HARPER. 


The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  threatening  letter  referred  to  in  the  above : 

Philadelphia,  May  8,  1844 

Bishop  Hughes  : 

^  Sir — TTie  bleeding  body  of  my  lifeless  brother  George  now  lies  before  me,  assas¬ 
sinated  by  the  minions  of  that  religion  to  gain  an  a-'cendancy  for  whicli  you  com¬ 
menced  a  movement  in  New  York.  I  have  sworn  that  his  life  shall  be  revenged, 
and  I  will  compass  sea  and  land  to  accomplish  it ;  and  if  I  cannot  glut  my  rev’enge 


696 


APPENDIX. 


on  the  mins  of  the  temples  of  your  accursed  religion  in  this  city,  I  will  reserve  a 
well  sharpened  poignard  for  your  breast.  You,  as  Judge  Doran  has  sai  1,  deserve 
the  censure  of  all  Catholics  for  your  course  ;  and  if  the  Catholic  temples,  and  the 

. *  connected  with  them,  called  Female  Asylums,  cannot  be  reached,  the 

foreigner  who  dared  to  attempt  to  turn  our  institutions  to  the  aim  and  ends  of  that 
religion  that  has  cursed  Italy,  Spain,  Austria,  South  America,  and  Mexico,  shall  be 
made  to  bite  the  dust.  I  will  avenge  the  abuse  that  you  have  made  of  your  own 
countrymen,  and  will  have  satisfaction  for  the  blood  of  a  Native  American,  my  own 
brother. 

CHARLES  A.  SHIFFLER. 

Wednesday  morning. — Last  night  I  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  the  influence  of 
your  hell-born  religion  met  by  the  indignation  of  an  outraged  community,  and  the 
victims  burned  in  the  houses  from  which  they  were  advised  to  shoot  down  the 
Native  Americans.  But  I  have  a  higher  aim :  the  hellish  priests  who  dare  to 
compare  Catholic  with  Protestant  countries,  and  the  temples  of  their  infernal  or¬ 
gies — they  must  come  down.  The  Catholic  religion  is  a  stain  on  the  history  of 
man.  It  must  be  blotted  out,  and  their  temples  scattered  in  the  dirt.  Let  your 
minions  dare  to  tell  us  that  the  Catholic  religion  has  not  been  a  curse  wherever  it 
has  been  established ;  let  your  emissaries  dare  to  insult  this  community  by  re¬ 
peating  your  sentiments  on  this  subject.  Thank  God,  I  have  seen  St.  Michael’s  in 
ashes;  I  hope  to  see  others.  The  blood  of  American  citizens  calls  loudly  for 
Catholic  blood,  or  the  destruction  of  the  instruments  of  their  power. 

C.  A.  S. 

St.  Augustine’s  is  surrounded,  and  it  will  probably  fall.  The  reaction  of  the 
people  against  your  infernal  religion  is  general ;  it  will  receive  its  death  blow,  I 
hope,  in  this  country,  and  never  be  its  curse,  as  it  has  been  everywhere  else  a 
curse  to  every  country. 


Mayor’s  Office,  Philadelphia,  May  31,  1844. 
Hon.  James  Harper,  Mayor  of  New  Ycrrk ; 

Dear  Sir — Your  favor  of  the  28th  is  received.  My  jurisdiction  as  Mayor  of 
Philadelphia  extends  only  over  the  city  proper — a  small  portion  of  that  great  mass 
of  buildings  known  as  Philadelphia. 

The  Shiffler  who  was  shot,  did  not  live  in  the  city,  but  in  an  adjoining  district ; 
and  presuming  that  if  the  writer  of  the  letter  you  enclosed  in  your  favor  of  the 
28th  was  really  a  Shiffler,  he  also  would,  be  found  out  of  the  city  proper,  I  applied 
to  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  Quarter  Sessions,  whose  jurisdic¬ 
tion  extends  over  the  whole  country,  submitted  your  communication  to  them,  and 
employed  the  very  intelligent  officer  whom  they  sent  to  me  in  an  investigation. 

He  assures  me  that  the  person  who  has  died  has  left  only  two  brothers — one 
seven,  and  the  other  fourteen  years  of  age,  and  neither  bearing  the  name  of  Charles 
— the  latter  at  work  as  a  tobacconist,  aud  too  young  to  have  been  the  author  or 
the  writer  of  that  letter,  which  is  obviously  the  production  of  a  cultivated  man. 
We  are  driven  therefore  to  the  conclusion  that  the  name  is  an  assumed  one,  and 
that  no  such  person  exists  as  Charles  A.  Shiffler,  brother  to  the  one  who  was  shot. 

Should  any  further  light  be  obtained,  I  will  make  immediate  communication  to 
you. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  SCOTT,  Mayor. 

•It  is  ndt  deemed  necessary  to  give  the  filthy  expression  used  by  the  writer.  Ed. 


,  \  ’‘■atVr 

■  •■  -^4^' 

■  wmm':  •■  '-■•  '■'•  '•' . 

•  M  “%f.-;^‘A.,*; .  -  -!  Jli*fr-^“  •  • 

ica^h'  _  ■'  '■• 


..  >"■  -  >  • 


